HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

High praise for PM Sunak from Trump.

'"I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn’t going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don’t have a clue," Trump wrote.

Trump, who is leading the polls in the contest for the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination, said the U.S. "keeps rolling merrily along, spending Trillions of Dollars trying to do that which is not doable, while at the same time breathing in the filthy and totally untreated air floating over our once great Country from China, India, Russia, and Parts Unknown..Trump added: "Congratulations to Prime Minister Sunak for recognizing this SCAM before it was too late!"'
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-sunak-smart-for-easing-climate-targets/

Something tells me that that's an endorsement that Rishi could have done without.

Depends, for the voters the Tories have lost to RefUK it might help, centrist voters will be turned off but they are already mainly voting for Starmer or the LDs anyway now

And how many seats will have a REF UK candidate when it comes to it, anyway

Quite why they even figure in the polls when they are so invisible and incidental is something of a mystery. Surely it's just people who always replied 'UKIP' and can't kick the habit?

RefUK are on 8% in the latest Opinium and Yougov polls, the highest voteshare for a party right of the Tories since the 12% UKIP got in 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FPT

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.

But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?

And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.

Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.

Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.

(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)

The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.

Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).

Here you go:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.

Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.

Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?

I didn't.

You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.

To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.

So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!

I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.

Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!

Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.

The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.

If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.

I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.

It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.

Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.

Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.

Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.

We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.

There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.

What do you want - a road each?

No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.

I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?

Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.

If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.

Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.

Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.

Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.

If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.

Every time someone like me uses a bike or bus to commute to work, they leave more space on the road for people like you on your 25 mile car commute.

That's productivity growth. More with less.

And you're welcome 🥰

That depends.

On a dedicated cycle path segregated from but next to the road? Absolutely you're completely correct, and I 100% support building those with new roads.

On a shared single lane each direction road? No, that's not the case. Length wise the cyclist takes the same space as a small car so no space saved, width wise it's less but unless the road is wide enough to fit both it's not safe to drive alongside and overtake a cyclist in the same lane of traffic most of the time.

Yes if I'm behind a cyclist I can overtake it, and I will. But I also need to do so safely, which means slowing down to the cyclists speed if there's oncoming traffic and then overtaking when there's a gap in the oncoming traffic.

Which means that the cyclist simply slows down traffic and no space is saved. Unless you want me to overtake the cyclist dangerously, but I don't think either of us want that now do we?

Which is why again there's no alternative to building both roads AND cycle paths. We need both.

MattW said:

Scott_xP said:

Leon said:

So presumably the problem is Euston station itself? FFS just get a grip

Sadly the Inaction Man doll currently our PM does not come with the 'gripping hands' feature..

I prefer a comparison with the Palitoy product "Little Big Man", which was iirc around 8" tall - smaller than Inaction Man.
https://www.doyouremember.co.uk/memory/little-big-man

Also, Rishi refitting his bathroom.
https://www.adsoftheworld.com/campaigns/little-big-man

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FPT

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.

But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?

And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.

Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.

Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.

(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)

The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.

Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).

Here you go:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.

Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.

Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?

I didn't.

You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.

To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.

So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!

I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.

Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!

Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.

The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.

If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.

I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.

It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.

Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.

Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.

Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.

We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.

There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.

What do you want - a road each?

No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.

I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?

Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.

If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.

Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.

Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.

Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.

If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.

Every time someone like me uses a bike or bus to commute to work, they leave more space on the road for people like you on your 25 mile car commute.

That's productivity growth. More with less.

And you're welcome 🥰

That depends.

On a dedicated cycle path segregated from but next to the road? Absolutely you're completely correct, and I 100% support building those with new roads.

On a shared single lane each direction road? No, that's not the case. Length wise the cyclist takes the same space as a small car so no space saved, width wise it's less but unless the road is wide enough to fit both it's not safe to drive alongside and overtake a cyclist in the same lane of traffic most of the time.

Yes if I'm behind a cyclist I can overtake it, and I will. But I also need to do so safely, which means slowing down to the cyclists speed if there's oncoming traffic and then overtaking when there's a gap in the oncoming traffic.

Which means that the cyclist simply slows down traffic and no space is saved. Unless you want me to overtake the cyclist dangerously, but I don't think either of us want that now do we?

Which is why again there's no alternative to building both roads AND cycle paths. We need both.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the argument preceding it. Segregated bikes lanes shift a lot of bike traffic off the road, negating the arguments you make about bikes slowing the traffic. You can decrease pressure on vehicular traffic without building more capacity for it, by building capacity for bikes.

TimS said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

There's no "might be" about it.

Sunak absolutely is worse than Johnson and Truss.

They had flaws, but they at least were trying to support aspiration and make things better. Sunak isn't even trying.

From my point of view those two were still worse. But vs a low bar.

Johnson was too lazy actually to get anything meaningfully done. That probably puts him on a par with Sunak but for different reasons. But on top of that he was corrosive to trust and due process in politics.

Truss was just bonkers. From the pork markets speech to her recent attempts to claim she was the victim of an establishment coup, she just doesn’t live in the same world as the rest of us. She lives in this weird slightly psychedelic Truss-land.

Sunak is just weak, ideologically incapable of thinking and acting long term, and politically out of his depth.

All three have been pretty solid on standing up to Russia, but Truss felt a little dangerous in that role. Johnson really meant it, I’ll give him that.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FPT

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.

But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?

And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.

Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.

Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.

(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)

The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.

Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).

Here you go:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.

Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.

Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?

I didn't.

You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.

To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.

So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!

I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.

Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!

Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.

The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.

If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.

I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.

It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.

Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.

Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.

Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.

We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.

There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.

What do you want - a road each?

No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.

I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?

Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.

If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.

Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.

Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.

Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.

If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.

Every time someone like me uses a bike or bus to commute to work, they leave more space on the road for people like you on your 25 mile car commute.

That's productivity growth. More with less.

And you're welcome 🥰

That depends.

On a dedicated cycle path segregated from but next to the road? Absolutely you're completely correct, and I 100% support building those with new roads.

On a shared single lane each direction road? No, that's not the case. Length wise the cyclist takes the same space as a small car so no space saved, width wise it's less but unless the road is wide enough to fit both it's not safe to drive alongside and overtake a cyclist in the same lane of traffic most of the time.

Yes if I'm behind a cyclist I can overtake it, and I will. But I also need to do so safely, which means slowing down to the cyclists speed if there's oncoming traffic and then overtaking when there's a gap in the oncoming traffic.

Which means that the cyclist simply slows down traffic and no space is saved. Unless you want me to overtake the cyclist dangerously, but I don't think either of us want that now do we?

Which is why again there's no alternative to building both roads AND cycle paths. We need both.

Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.

But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FPT

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.

But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?

And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.

Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.

Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.

(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)

The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.

Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).

Here you go:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.

Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.

Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?

I didn't.

You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.

To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.

So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!

I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.

Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!

Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.

The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.

If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.

I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.

It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.

Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.

Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.

Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.

We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.

There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.

What do you want - a road each?

No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.

I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?

Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.

If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.

Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.

Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.

Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.

If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.

Every time someone like me uses a bike or bus to commute to work, they leave more space on the road for people like you on your 25 mile car commute.

That's productivity growth. More with less.

And you're welcome 🥰

That depends.

On a dedicated cycle path segregated from but next to the road? Absolutely you're completely correct, and I 100% support building those with new roads.

On a shared single lane each direction road? No, that's not the case. Length wise the cyclist takes the same space as a small car so no space saved, width wise it's less but unless the road is wide enough to fit both it's not safe to drive alongside and overtake a cyclist in the same lane of traffic most of the time.

Yes if I'm behind a cyclist I can overtake it, and I will. But I also need to do so safely, which means slowing down to the cyclists speed if there's oncoming traffic and then overtaking when there's a gap in the oncoming traffic.

Which means that the cyclist simply slows down traffic and no space is saved. Unless you want me to overtake the cyclist dangerously, but I don't think either of us want that now do we?

Which is why again there's no alternative to building both roads AND cycle paths. We need both.

Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.

But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.

Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.

I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FPT

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.

But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?

And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.

Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.

Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.

(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)

The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.

Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).

Here you go:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.

Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.

Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?

I didn't.

You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.

To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.

So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!

I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.

Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!

Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.

The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.

If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.

I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.

It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.

Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.

Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.

Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.

We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.

There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.

What do you want - a road each?

No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.

I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?

Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.

If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.

Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.

Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.

Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.

If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.

Every time someone like me uses a bike or bus to commute to work, they leave more space on the road for people like you on your 25 mile car commute.

That's productivity growth. More with less.

And you're welcome 🥰

That depends.

On a dedicated cycle path segregated from but next to the road? Absolutely you're completely correct, and I 100% support building those with new roads.

On a shared single lane each direction road? No, that's not the case. Length wise the cyclist takes the same space as a small car so no space saved, width wise it's less but unless the road is wide enough to fit both it's not safe to drive alongside and overtake a cyclist in the same lane of traffic most of the time.

Yes if I'm behind a cyclist I can overtake it, and I will. But I also need to do so safely, which means slowing down to the cyclists speed if there's oncoming traffic and then overtaking when there's a gap in the oncoming traffic.

Which means that the cyclist simply slows down traffic and no space is saved. Unless you want me to overtake the cyclist dangerously, but I don't think either of us want that now do we?

Which is why again there's no alternative to building both roads AND cycle paths. We need both.

Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.

But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.

Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.

I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.

Why not pop one alongside an existing road?

You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of investing in housing.

FrankBooth said:

Is IHT the last remaining major financial benefit to marriage?

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

IanB2 said:

Tres said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FPT

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.

But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?

And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.

Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.

Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.

(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)

The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.

It's a lot easier to build roads and cycle paths when your entire country is flat as a pancake. What makes you think the Dutch could do to improve the road between Manchester and Sheffield?

Dutch towns are nevertheless almost always well designed, with a real effort made to create good places to live

Honestly, whilst I agree with you on the Dutch being better at the planning and building stuff, most Dutch towns are pretty soulless.

People bring soul, not towns or cities.

The Dutch, like the Japanese, do building and development and do it well. They both have a better standard of living as a result.

Keeping old Georgian buildings undisturbed may look like it has soul, but if behind the façade you have 16 people living in a building meant for 4, in squalor, with crappy living standards and no infrastructure then that's not soul - we've sold our soul if that's how we expect people to live.

That looks like yet another of your pronouncements based on absolutely no experience whatsoever.

Wrong.

I have lived in a subdivided house that was built for fewer people but was subdivided into multiple really shitty homes that were not really fit for purpose, but it was all that was available.

As have many others in this country.

Have you?

One of the juniors at the bank I work at was living in a 3 bed flat. The landlord came in, divided the living room into 2 more bedroom. So she is now living in a 5 bed flat with no living room.

This kind of behaviour used to be how it rolled at the bottom end of the property market*. The real slums. That it is reaching the middle classes will boil the frog a little more.

Then the reaction…

*I’ve personally seem multiple instance of houses where adults live in bunk beds, stacked in every room. This is where supper cheap migrant labour lives.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FPT

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.

But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?

And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.

Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.

Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.

(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)

The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.

Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).

Here you go:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.

Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.

Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?

I didn't.

You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.

To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.

So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!

I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.

Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!

Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.

The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.

If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.

I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.

It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.

Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.

Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.

Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.

We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.

There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.

What do you want - a road each?

No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.

I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?

Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.

If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.

Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.

Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.

Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.

If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.

Every time someone like me uses a bike or bus to commute to work, they leave more space on the road for people like you on your 25 mile car commute.

That's productivity growth. More with less.

And you're welcome 🥰

That depends.

On a dedicated cycle path segregated from but next to the road? Absolutely you're completely correct, and I 100% support building those with new roads.

On a shared single lane each direction road? No, that's not the case. Length wise the cyclist takes the same space as a small car so no space saved, width wise it's less but unless the road is wide enough to fit both it's not safe to drive alongside and overtake a cyclist in the same lane of traffic most of the time.

Yes if I'm behind a cyclist I can overtake it, and I will. But I also need to do so safely, which means slowing down to the cyclists speed if there's oncoming traffic and then overtaking when there's a gap in the oncoming traffic.

Which means that the cyclist simply slows down traffic and no space is saved. Unless you want me to overtake the cyclist dangerously, but I don't think either of us want that now do we?

Which is why again there's no alternative to building both roads AND cycle paths. We need both.

Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.

But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.

Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.

I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.

Why not pop one alongside an existing road?

You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of investing in housing.

Where alongside an existing road?

Undeveloped land? Absolutely go for it. For rural roads that's an option.

But if there's houses or gardens or shops alongside the road would you bulldoze them?

Its not either/or, we need both. We need infrastructure AND housing. Our population has grown by a quarter in a generation but our last major investment in our infrastructure was two generations ago. We desperately need both now.

Be smart and you can include public transport too.

Build new towns and cities, with arterial roads which have a cycle path, road lanes for cars and tram tracks down the middle, with LTNs off the arteries for housing.

FrankBooth said:

Are people of the view that HS2 is the best use of government capital spending? Where will the money savings go instead?

Scott_xP said:

@UKLabour

They're not on your side.

eek said:

FrankBooth said:

The Tories haven been in charge of HS2 for 13 years. All this targetting of Sunak personally seems like an attempt to make him a scapegoat for failings that have many authors.

The cutting of the eastern leg was done when Sunak was chancellor.

The cutting of the Manchester leg is being done by Sunak a week or so before the Tory Party conference (in Manchester).

Sunak’ name is all over the changes to HS2..

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FPT

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.

But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?

And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.

Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.

Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.

(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)

The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.

Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).

Here you go:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.

Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.

Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?

I didn't.

You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.

To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.

So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!

I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.

Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!

Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.

The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.

If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.

I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.

It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.

Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.

Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.

Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.

We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.

There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.

What do you want - a road each?

No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.

I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?

Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.

If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.

Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.

Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.

Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.

If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.

Every time someone like me uses a bike or bus to commute to work, they leave more space on the road for people like you on your 25 mile car commute.

That's productivity growth. More with less.

And you're welcome 🥰

That depends.

On a dedicated cycle path segregated from but next to the road? Absolutely you're completely correct, and I 100% support building those with new roads.

On a shared single lane each direction road? No, that's not the case. Length wise the cyclist takes the same space as a small car so no space saved, width wise it's less but unless the road is wide enough to fit both it's not safe to drive alongside and overtake a cyclist in the same lane of traffic most of the time.

Yes if I'm behind a cyclist I can overtake it, and I will. But I also need to do so safely, which means slowing down to the cyclists speed if there's oncoming traffic and then overtaking when there's a gap in the oncoming traffic.

Which means that the cyclist simply slows down traffic and no space is saved. Unless you want me to overtake the cyclist dangerously, but I don't think either of us want that now do we?

Which is why again there's no alternative to building both roads AND cycle paths. We need both.

Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.

But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.

Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.

I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.

Why not pop one alongside an existing road?

You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of investing in housing.

Where alongside an existing road?

Undeveloped land? Absolutely go for it. For rural roads that's an option.

But if there's houses or gardens or shops alongside the road would you bulldoze them?

Its not either/or, we need both. We need infrastructure AND housing. Our population has grown by a quarter in a generation but our last major investment in our infrastructure was two generations ago. We desperately need both now.

Be smart and you can include public transport too.

Build new towns and cities, with arterial roads which have a cycle path, road lanes for cars and tram tracks down the middle, with LTNs off the arteries for housing.

Your "new road" dogma we would lead to a completely incoherent cycle network. Finding space is easy on existing roads - just remove on street parking.

I'm in no bubble. 80% of us live in urban areas. You're the weird one with the 40km commute and a road fetish.

FrankBooth said:

Are people of the view that HS2 is the best use of government capital spending? Where will the money savings go instead?

RandallFlagg said:

The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

High praise for PM Sunak from Trump.

'"I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn’t going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don’t have a clue," Trump wrote.

Trump, who is leading the polls in the contest for the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination, said the U.S. "keeps rolling merrily along, spending Trillions of Dollars trying to do that which is not doable, while at the same time breathing in the filthy and totally untreated air floating over our once great Country from China, India, Russia, and Parts Unknown..Trump added: "Congratulations to Prime Minister Sunak for recognizing this SCAM before it was too late!"'
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-sunak-smart-for-easing-climate-targets/

Something tells me that that's an endorsement that Rishi could have done without.

Depends, for the voters the Tories have lost to RefUK it might help, centrist voters will be turned off but they are already mainly voting for Starmer or the LDs anyway now

And, as has been said before, winning back Reform UK voters gets the Tories a slightly less bad defeat. If they have any chance of winning a general election, they need to win back people now intending to vote Labour and LibDem.

The Tories have virtually no chance of winning the next general election, whatever Sunak does after 13 years in power swing voters are going Labour or LD now. The Tories just need to focus on narrowing the margin of defeat to rebuild in opposition when Labour will have to deal with the economy.

An inheritance tax cut is popular in polling with most voters anyway and those opposed to delaying the ban on new petrol cars and ban on oil boilers would almost all never vote Tory anyway

Why not narrow the margin of defeat by going for the larger pools of ex-
Conservative supporters who are now contemplating voting Lab or LD, rather than the smaller pool of ex-Conservative supporters who are now in the Reform UK column?

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

High praise for PM Sunak from Trump.

'"I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn’t going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don’t have a clue," Trump wrote.

Trump, who is leading the polls in the contest for the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination, said the U.S. "keeps rolling merrily along, spending Trillions of Dollars trying to do that which is not doable, while at the same time breathing in the filthy and totally untreated air floating over our once great Country from China, India, Russia, and Parts Unknown..Trump added: "Congratulations to Prime Minister Sunak for recognizing this SCAM before it was too late!"'
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-sunak-smart-for-easing-climate-targets/

Something tells me that that's an endorsement that Rishi could have done without.

Depends, for the voters the Tories have lost to RefUK it might help, centrist voters will be turned off but they are already mainly voting for Starmer or the LDs anyway now

And, as has been said before, winning back Reform UK voters gets the Tories a slightly less bad defeat. If they have any chance of winning a general election, they need to win back people now intending to vote Labour and LibDem.

The Tories have virtually no chance of winning the next general election, whatever Sunak does after 13 years in power swing voters are going Labour or LD now. The Tories just need to focus on narrowing the margin of defeat to rebuild in opposition when Labour will have to deal with the economy.

An inheritance tax cut is popular in polling with most voters anyway and those opposed to delaying the ban on new petrol cars and ban on oil boilers would almost all never vote Tory anyway

Why not narrow the margin of defeat by going for the larger pools of ex-Conservative supporters who are now contemplating voting Lab or LD, rather than the smaller pool of ex-Conservative supporters who are now in the Reform UK column?

Casino_Royale said:

RandallFlagg said:

The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.

Well, that's right.

If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.

It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.

Gardenwalker said:

eek said:

FrankBooth said:

The Tories haven been in charge of HS2 for 13 years. All this targetting of Sunak personally seems like an attempt to make him a scapegoat for failings that have many authors.

The cutting of the eastern leg was done when Sunak was chancellor.

The cutting of the Manchester leg is being done by Sunak a week or so before the Tory Party conference (in Manchester).

Sunak’ name is all over the changes to HS2..

As I’ve posted many times, Rishi is a fiscal dry who is possibly - in this respect - more Thatcherite than Thatcher.

He wants the smallest possible state. He has more in common with US Republicans than many of his Tory colleagues.

Casino_Royale said:

RandallFlagg said:

The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.

Well, that's right.

If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.

It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.

TimS said:

Gardenwalker said:

eek said:

FrankBooth said:

The Tories haven been in charge of HS2 for 13 years. All this targetting of Sunak personally seems like an attempt to make him a scapegoat for failings that have many authors.

The cutting of the eastern leg was done when Sunak was chancellor.

The cutting of the Manchester leg is being done by Sunak a week or so before the Tory Party conference (in Manchester).

Sunak’ name is all over the changes to HS2..

As I’ve posted many times, Rishi is a fiscal dry who is possibly - in this respect - more Thatcherite than Thatcher.

He wants the smallest possible state. He has more in common with US Republicans than many of his Tory colleagues.

He’s also a Brexiteer and closed borders fan (the latter in principle if not in fact). That’s a contradiction: I think you can afford to have a laissez faire small state government if you also liberalise borders to allow cheap plentiful labour to keep costs low and working age / pensioner population in balance. Pretty difficult to maintain an autarchy with minimal government.

TimS said:

Gardenwalker said:

eek said:

FrankBooth said:

The Tories haven been in charge of HS2 for 13 years. All this targetting of Sunak personally seems like an attempt to make him a scapegoat for failings that have many authors.

The cutting of the eastern leg was done when Sunak was chancellor.

The cutting of the Manchester leg is being done by Sunak a week or so before the Tory Party conference (in Manchester).

Sunak’ name is all over the changes to HS2..

As I’ve posted many times, Rishi is a fiscal dry who is possibly - in this respect - more Thatcherite than Thatcher.

He wants the smallest possible state. He has more in common with US Republicans than many of his Tory colleagues.

He’s also a Brexiteer and closed borders fan (the latter in principle if not in fact). That’s a contradiction: I think you can afford to have a laissez faire small state government if you also liberalise borders to allow cheap plentiful labour to keep costs low and working age / pensioner population in balance. Pretty difficult to maintain an autarchy with minimal government.

HYUFD said:

AlsoLei said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

StillWaters said:

@TSE

Yesterday you were rather rude about the King parental style. From today’s mail:

At the time, he [Harry] was offered the chance to stay in Balmoral with his father Charles on the anniversary of the Queen's death on September 7 but said his busy itinerary made it impossible.

I guess Harry doesn’t rank seeing his father that high in his list of priorities

No doubt there’s some fault on both sides - but good parents welcome their kids unconditionally.

Balmoral is the King's private residence, so as Harry's father he offered him the chance to stay there.

Windsor castle is a state residence, if Harry wanted to stay there he should have stayed a working royal based in the UK rather than move into a California mansion and stop royal duties. As a result if he now comes to London again he can stay in a hotel like other US based tourists

I believe that the only remaining working royals are the King and Queen, Prince Richard, Princess Anne, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, and the Prince and Princess of Wales (though they barely count, since they do only a tiny fraction of the number of engagements that the others do).

Does nobody else ever stay at Windsor?

It has over a thousand bedrooms, so it seems a bit of a waste to reserve them all for only 8 people - all of whom have other places to stay already.

No unless you are a working royal or were a working royal for most of your working life you don't get accomodation at Windsor.

There is staff accomodation needed at Windsor too and bedrooms for foreign visiting dignitaries etc

RochdalePioneers said:

.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Beibheirli_C said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Cicero said:

Sandpit said:

Fishing said:

numbertwelve said:

No matter your views on HS2, the way it has been ‘delivered’ is a national scandal and that alone should be enough to doom the Tory government.

The fact we have gone from a high speed link to the two biggest conurbations in the north, to only one, to none at all, to maybe even making journey times from Birmingham to central London longer (if it terminates at Old Oak Common) is pathetic. All that money spent for a defective railway line.

It is symptomatic of the rot at the heart of the British government.

I think the real scandal is that it is projected to cost £350 million/mile, when similar lines are delivered by the French and Spanish for a tenth of that. Either the NIMBYs should be overridden and the planning process massively curtailed or we should scrap it and also give up on building anything in this country.

Part of it is population density, so more people are affected in the UK than in France or Spain. The whole planning and environmental rigmarole is I’m sure a bigger factor.

It must surely be easier for Parliament to pass a Bill agreeing to pay everyone a 50% uplift on their property on the route, than to have to sit through a decade of public enquiries with vocal opposition groups on the route?

The cost of compulsory purchase is large, but it is "only" about £3 billion. The largest single cost item is the design of the run-in to Euston, which has still not been properly costed. The problem is the way this is being built- by consultants and PR Bullshitters, not by people who know what they are doing.

I think Sunak underestimates how angry people are about this. If we can not match the rest of Europe for decent infrastructure at comparable cost, then UK PLC is over. The control of major infrastructure projects should be brought in-house to the government and not done project by project with the expertise being lost once each project team is dispersed. Neither should there be a revolving door between the contractors and the delivery Quangos.

This is only a mere hundred miles London to Birmingham and it is coming in at c25x the cost of TGV Nord which is more than twice the length and in not that dissimilar population density.

PR and Bullshit do not beat engineers, and if Sunak is too incompetent to get this done, then the Tories must be put out of our misery.

What a way to build a railway.

"If we can not match the rest of Europe for decent infrastructure at comparable cost, then UK PLC is over."

A line so powerful that it is worth repeating. All of our competitor nations have all these things already - more motorways, high speed rail, a hub airport. We do not.

The solution - as you rightly point out - is a StateCo. Far enough from the reach of ministers and mandarins to operate without meddling, but not private sector giving fortunes to spivs.

In the past we used to have road construction units - a team of engineers who would build project after project after project. We had railway electrification units who did the same. And we could have it again if we recognised that (a) we need these things and (b) not spending the money is not zero-cost.

It is because the UK no longer to builds things or does things. The UK's current export is money. We send all our money to overseas investors.

That is just a myth. The UK just overtook France to become the 8th largest manufacturing nation in the world.

No no - she has a point. We screw things together here for foreigners - we own very little of what is left of industry. All flogged off for a nice fee for the spiv who put the deal together.

Casino_Royale said:

RandallFlagg said:

The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.

Well, that's right.

If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.

It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.

Casino_Royale said:

RandallFlagg said:

The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.

Well, that's right.

If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.

It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.

Casino_Royale said:

RandallFlagg said:

The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.

Well, that's right.

If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.

It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.

noneoftheabove said:

StillWaters said:

AlsoLei said:

noneoftheabove said:

malcolmg said:

StillWaters said:

Nigelb said:

StillWaters said:

@TSE

Yesterday you were rather rude about the King parental style. From today’s mail:

At the time, he [Harry] was offered the chance to stay in Balmoral with his father Charles on the anniversary of the Queen's death on September 7 but said his busy itinerary made it impossible.

I guess Harry doesn’t rank seeing his father that high in his list of priorities

No doubt there’s some fault on both sides - but good parents welcome their kids unconditionally.

The issue is that the King is quite busy - time has to be scheduled. Additionally Harry is not trusted - the fear is that private conversations will be leaked (may be not by Harry, but he will - reasonably - tell his wife and she is definitely not trusted) - while any photographs will be monetised.

The King’s duty comes above what he might want as a person

LOL the King is busy, what kind of idiot believes that , the arsehole swands about stuffing his fat face and pocketing as much of the public's money he can get his hands on. A day's work would unhinge him.

He must be super busy given the state pay for two people to get him dressed, iron his shoelaces and squeeze the toothpaste onto his brush.....not sure I have ever met anyone that busy that they require that level of time saving.

Come on, be fair to the poor man. The guy who squeezes his toothpaste also doubles
up as the person who handles the binbags
full of dodgy cash. How very economical,
eh?

Why let facts get in the way of a good story?

He once had assistance when he had broken his shoulder and it needed to be completely immobilised for some months

Good to see you defending him seeing as his brother wouldn't sweat it.

HYUFD said:

AlsoLei said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

StillWaters said:

@TSE

Yesterday you were rather rude about the King parental style. From today’s mail:

At the time, he [Harry] was offered the chance to stay in Balmoral with his father Charles on the anniversary of the Queen's death on September 7 but said his busy itinerary made it impossible.

I guess Harry doesn’t rank seeing his father that high in his list of priorities

No doubt there’s some fault on both sides - but good parents welcome their kids unconditionally.

Balmoral is the King's private residence, so as Harry's father he offered him the chance to stay there.

Windsor castle is a state residence, if Harry wanted to stay there he should have stayed a working royal based in the UK rather than move into a California mansion and stop royal duties. As a result if he now comes to London again he can stay in a hotel like other US based tourists

I believe that the only remaining working royals are the King and Queen, Prince Richard, Princess Anne, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, and the Prince and Princess of Wales (though they barely count, since they do only a tiny fraction of the number of engagements that the others do).

Does nobody else ever stay at Windsor?

It has over a thousand bedrooms, so it seems a bit of a waste to reserve them all for only 8 people - all of whom have other places to stay already.

No unless you are a working royal or were a working royal for most of your working life you don't get accomodation at Windsor.

There is staff accomodation needed at Windsor too and bedrooms for foreign visiting dignitaries etc

algarkirk said:

TimS said:

Gardenwalker said:

eek said:

FrankBooth said:

The Tories haven been in charge of HS2 for 13 years. All this targetting of Sunak personally seems like an attempt to make him a scapegoat for failings that have many authors.

The cutting of the eastern leg was done when Sunak was chancellor.

The cutting of the Manchester leg is being done by Sunak a week or so before the Tory Party conference (in Manchester).

Sunak’ name is all over the changes to HS2..

As I’ve posted many times, Rishi is a fiscal dry who is possibly - in this respect - more Thatcherite than Thatcher.

He wants the smallest possible state. He has more in common with US Republicans than many of his Tory colleagues.

He’s also a Brexiteer and closed borders fan (the latter in principle if not in fact). That’s a contradiction: I think you can afford to have a laissez faire small state government if you also liberalise borders to allow cheap plentiful labour to keep costs low and working age / pensioner population in balance. Pretty difficult to maintain an autarchy with minimal government.

Rishi is not a closed borders fan. He is a fan of reducing numbers arriving by means unacceptable to the Daily Mail. He is a huge fan if inward migration. Look at the numbers.

pm215 said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Leon said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Leon said:

I’ve been sitting in my living room in Camden watching them build HS2 out of Euston for ten years. A decade of disruption, noise, trucks, closed roads, etc

Are they really going to turn around and say Ah, it was pointless, the train is now gonna stop at a portakabin in Kilburn? If so, what happens to the billions expended on the Euston line? What happens to the enormous great hole?!

It is so monumentally dumb, surreal and self-harming it is outwith comprehension

Started by Labour and confirmed by Tories and Libdems - the nearest thing to political consensus we'll ever see.

Only the Greens are against because it's the wrong sort of public transport.

Morocco has high speed trains. Poland has high speed trains. Egypt has high speed trains. Thailand is building high speed trains. UZBEKISTAN has high speed trains

Britain has a shed south of Neasden that cost £4 trillion

I don't understand what the problem is at Euston. As you say, they've already dug a very nice hole. All they need now is platforms and a tunnel to Old Oak Common. Why have they suddenly realised this is difficult? What's gone wrong?

Likewise. Surely all the hard work is now done. They’ve bought the land, they’ve done the digging (I’ve watched them) the main works are now nearly complete

So presumably the problem is Euston station itself? FFS just get a grip

What I can't work out is if they have done the tunnel from Old Oak Common aka middle of nowhere to the bit just south of the canal on the final run down to Euston?

AIUI they haven't done the tunnel south from OOC yet. They have bought the extremely expensive customised-for-the-geology tunnel boring machines; they are doing the preparatory work to put them underground before OOC station is done (since you can't do it afterwards); but they are not going to start them digging. Instead they will be regularly maintained and cared for as they sit idle underground. This is of course nuts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66468773

algarkirk said:

Malmesbury said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

IanB2 said:

Tres said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FPT

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.

But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?

And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.

Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.

Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.

(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)

The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.

It's a lot easier to build roads and cycle paths when your entire country is flat as a pancake. What makes you think the Dutch could do to improve the road between Manchester and Sheffield?

Dutch towns are nevertheless almost always well designed, with a real effort made to create good places to live

Honestly, whilst I agree with you on the Dutch being better at the planning and building stuff, most Dutch towns are pretty soulless.

People bring soul, not towns or cities.

The Dutch, like the Japanese, do building and development and do it well. They both have a better standard of living as a result.

Keeping old Georgian buildings undisturbed may look like it has soul, but if behind the façade you have 16 people living in a building meant for 4, in squalor, with crappy living standards and no infrastructure then that's not soul - we've sold our soul if that's how we expect people to live.

That looks like yet another of your pronouncements based on absolutely no experience whatsoever.

Wrong.

I have lived in a subdivided house that was built for fewer people but was subdivided into multiple really shitty homes that were not really fit for purpose, but it was all that was available.

As have many others in this country.

Have you?

One of the juniors at the bank I work at was living in a 3 bed flat. The landlord came in, divided the living room into 2 more bedroom. So she is now living in a 5 bed flat with no living room.

This kind of behaviour used to be how it rolled at the bottom end of the property market*. The real slums. That it is reaching the middle classes will boil the frog a little more.

Then the reaction…

*I’ve personally seem multiple instance of houses where adults live in bunk beds, stacked in every room. This is where supper cheap migrant labour lives.

As long as people are prepared to put up with what the junior at the bank puts up with no-one has any reason much to change things.

In many parts of the country housing is not a major issue. People with jobs get themselves housed realistically, with high levels of private ownership alongside social housing and a rented sector. This receives no attention whatsoever, but this fact is an element in choices people have to make in reflecting on career options.

StillWaters said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FPT

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.

But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?

And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.

Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.

Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.

(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)

The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.

Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).

Here you go:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.

Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.

Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?

I didn't.

You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.

To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.

So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!

I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.

Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!

Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.

The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.

If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.

I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.

It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.

Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.

Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.

Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.

We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.

There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.

What do you want - a road each?

No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.

I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?

Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.

If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.

Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.

Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.

Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.

If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.

Every time someone like me uses a bike or bus to commute to work, they leave more space on the road for people like you on your 25 mile car commute.

That's productivity growth. More with less.

And you're welcome 🥰

That depends.

On a dedicated cycle path segregated from but next to the road? Absolutely you're completely correct, and I 100% support building those with new roads.

On a shared single lane each direction road? No, that's not the case. Length wise the cyclist takes the same space as a small car so no space saved, width wise it's less but unless the road is wide enough to fit both it's not safe to drive alongside and overtake a cyclist in the same lane of traffic most of the time.

Yes if I'm behind a cyclist I can overtake it, and I will. But I also need to do so safely, which means slowing down to the cyclists speed if there's oncoming traffic and then overtaking when there's a gap in the oncoming traffic.

Which means that the cyclist simply slows down traffic and no space is saved. Unless you want me to overtake the cyclist dangerously, but I don't think either of us want that now do we?

Which is why again there's no alternative to building both roads AND cycle paths. We need both.

Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.

But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.

Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.

I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.

Why not pop one alongside an existing
road?

You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of investing in housing.

Where alongside an existing road?

Undeveloped land? Absolutely go for it. For rural roads that's an option.

But if there's houses or gardens or shops alongside the road would you bulldoze them?

It’s not either/or, we need both. We need infrastructure AND housing. Our population has grown by a quarter in a generation but our last major investment in our infrastructure was two generations ago. We desperately need both now.

Be smart and you can include public transport too.

Build new towns and cities, with arterial roads which have a cycle path, road lanes for cars and tram tracks down the middle, with LTNs off the arteries for housing.

The Elizabeth Line and Thames Tideway are both recent. T5 was 15 years ago as well.!

Beibheirli_C said:

Carnyx said:

StillWaters said:

Scott_xP said:

@UKLabour

They're not on your side.

Interesting that they go with a “factual” statement that is almost certainly not true

(Although not branded labour so may be confused by Scott’s reference to @uk labour at the top)

On the contrary, as I noted earlier, it is *almost certainly literally true* in the sense that he almost certainly already has his wealth in trusts etc. But it would be even more embarrassing for a Tory to explain that.

The "Sunak will save" is a future tense, but is not preceded by a linking causal conjunction such as 'therefore' or 'ass a result of this'.

Edit: someone has put a lot of thought into that ad.

Actually, Sunak will NOT save a single penny because he will be dead when he is eligible to pay IHT on his estate. His heirs and assigns OTOH....

StillWaters said:

Scott_xP said:

@UKLabour

They're not on your side.

Interesting that they go with a “factual” statement that is almost certainly not true

(Although not branded labour so may be confused by Scott’s reference to @uk labour at the top)

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

RandallFlagg said:

The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.

Well, that's right.

If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.

It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.

Casino_Royale said:

RandallFlagg said:

The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.

Well, that's right.

If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.

It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.

I would normally agree, but the Tory Party have jumped the shark completely. They and their deluded supporters need annihilation to teach them the error of their ways.

kinabalu said:

RochdalePioneers said:

.

Leon said:

Seriously. What are the Tories intending to do with Euston and the billions spelt on compulsory purchase of land, homes, businesses - and the enormous hole in the ground made ready for HS2?

I’d quite like an answer as I look at it every day

The Tories don't know or care. But the simple truth is that it doesn't matter what they think - it is getting built. As soon as they are hoofed out the green light is given once again.

Yes, I'm kind of thinking of Starmer as the PM now. What he says (about anything) is more important than what Sunak says. It's an odd situation.

Casino_Royale said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

RandallFlagg said:

The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.

Well, that's right.

If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.

It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.

Casino_Royale said:

RandallFlagg said:

The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.

Well, that's right.

If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.

It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.

I would normally agree, but the Tory Party have jumped the shark completely. They and their deluded supporters need annihilation to teach them the error of their ways.

The Tory Party has already been annihilated. This lot are UKIP Mk2 they just forgot to change the name.

Not in the slightest- there's very little right-wing about this government.

The best you could say is that they're a gerontocracy.

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

RandallFlagg said:

The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.

Well, that's right.

If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.

It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.

Ah the Jeremy Corbyn 2019 logic?

Plenty of right-wingers like myself are thoroughly fed-up of this anti-aspiration Government. I've been a member of the Tories almost my entire adult life but you've not got my vote next time, or many other people's. I should be a part of your core.

There's core vote and there's really narrow core vote.

The way the party is operating now there's no reason anyone under 50 that doesn't expect a major inheritance should vote for the party.

You aren't Tory core, you voted for Blair. You weren't even part of the 31.7% who voted for Hague.

As for voters under 50, you are apparently even considering voting for the ultra NIMBY LDs who just this morning have slashed their housing development proposals
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66888549

Razedabode said:

This whole HS2 debacle I think speaks to a wider worry that a lot have - that we simply can’t get anything big built anymore. And when we do, it takes ages and is fraught with politics

Governing by opinion poll - not because it was always the right thing to do - has led us to this ridiculous situation where the Tories are the face of decline

Beibheirli_C said:

Carnyx said:

StillWaters said:

Scott_xP said:

@UKLabour

They're not on your side.

Interesting that they go with a “factual” statement that is almost certainly not true

(Although not branded labour so may be confused by Scott’s reference to @uk labour at the top)

On the contrary, as I noted earlier, it is *almost certainly literally true* in the sense that he almost certainly already has his wealth in trusts etc. But it would be even more embarrassing for a Tory to explain that.

The "Sunak will save" is a future tense, but is not preceded by a linking causal conjunction such as 'therefore' or 'ass a result of this'.

Edit: someone has put a lot of thought into that ad.

Actually, Sunak will NOT save a single penny because he will be dead when he is eligible to pay IHT on his estate. His heirs and assigns OTOH....

Mexicanpete said:

...

Beibheirli_C said:

Carnyx said:

StillWaters said:

Scott_xP said:

@UKLabour

They're not on your side.

Interesting that they go with a “factual” statement that is almost certainly not true

(Although not branded labour so may be confused by Scott’s reference to @uk labour at the top)

On the contrary, as I noted earlier, it is *almost certainly literally true* in the sense that he almost certainly already has his wealth in trusts etc. But it would be even more embarrassing for a Tory to explain that.

The "Sunak will save" is a future tense, but is not preceded by a linking causal conjunction such as 'therefore' or 'ass a result of this'.

Edit: someone has put a lot of thought into that ad.

Actually, Sunak will NOT save a single penny because he will be dead when he is eligible to pay IHT on his estate. His heirs and assigns OTOH....

What are the inheritance rules in the OC?

For, I suspect, that is where his estate will be divvied up.

BartholomewRoberts said:

StillWaters said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FPT

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

OK let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s before talking about new roads.

But of course we'll also need to restore the population back to what we had in the 50s. So who are the 17 million people you'd like to deport?

And of course we'll also need to restore the GDP per capita back closer to what we had in the 50s, since transportation infrastructure is critical in growing the economy. GDP per capita by PPP was about 30% of what it is today in the 50s.

Or we can live in the real world where growing population and growing the economy means we need infrastructure. In which case lets have roads and cycle paths built.

Aye, Dutch GDP per capita is a disaster.

(The 8x was adjusted for population. On deportation - don't give Mr Sunak ideas)

The Dutch have been building roads. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

The Dutch have massively more roads than we have per capita and per square mile. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I support a Dutch policy of building roads and cycle paths. For some perverted reason you don't.

Find the quote where I was against cycle paths on new roads (third time I've asked).

Here you go:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Andy_JS said:

Razedabode said:

The whole HS2 debacle is infuriating. What an utter bunch of idiots in charge. Absolutely no idea what Sunak or Hunt are thinking

The optics are shockingly poor. At least Sunak has his helicopter I guess

There's a lot of disruption in my area from HS2, and it would be ridiculous to stop building it now because it would mean all of that inconvenience has been for nothing.

Sunk cost fallacy. As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, could be an incredible London - Birmingham cycle track

Have it a dual motorway and separated cycle path and it'd absolutely be far better value for money than rail. 👍

Can't cycle on a motorway of course, but I see no reason you couldn't have separate cycle paths that go next to motorway routes.

We did have segregated cycle lanes on A roads built in the 70s, but these have largely been built on now.

Let's restore the cycle mileage we had in the 50s (8x what it is today) and then we can talk about new roads 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

No new roads = no new cycle paths to go with those roads.

Its not either/or, its not zero sum, we need both. We need investment in our infrastructure, we need roads and cycle paths. Its not feasible given our population growth to do one without the other, we need to stop dicking about and invest in our infrastructure and do both.

Why did you make up a thing about me not wanting cycle paths on new roads?

I didn't.

You have said time and again you are opposed to new roads. If there's no new roads built, there's no cycle paths built with new roads.

To get cycle paths built with new roads, you need to agree to the new roads, can't have one without the other.

So are you in favour of new roads and new cycle paths? If so, great, we can stop arguing, because that's what I've been advocating all along!

I'm in favour of cycle lanes on new roads.

Most British cities and towns already have the "new road". You can tell because they smashed them up in the 70s. We didn't bother to transform the centres at the same time like the Dutch did. Glasgow is a good example (Buchanan Street aside). Let's catch up!

Some towns don't have a bypass. Nairn is an example. The A96 should be bypassed and the centre should be pedestrianised, with the surrounding roads fitted with cycle lanes.

The 70s were before I was born and our population has grown by 13 million, roughly 25%, since the 70s.

If you're counting the 70s as "new" I think I can understand your fallacy.

I'm just pointing out that the Dutch started putting their cycle lanes in the 70s. We just didn't bother, even has we built more roads over the last 50 years.

It's you who seems to think no road building has happened since the 70s. Weird.

Absolutely insignificant road building has happened since the 70s, compared to our population growth.

Richard_Tyndall put a list of "major" new roads over the past decade on here the other day and it was pathetic tinkering at the edges. Incomparable to the fact our population has grown almost 10% since 2010, or 25% since the 1970s. Actually its over 20% nearly that 25% since 1997.

Our population has grown considerably, our infrastructure has not kept pace.

We haven't got enough roads, or cycle paths, houses or most other infrastructure compared to our population growth that's occurred.

There's no way to reverse that without committing to spending. There is no free lunch here.

What do you want - a road each?

No, I want investment to keep up with population growth. Its not rocket science, if our population grows, our infrastructure and housing stock etc needs to grow accordingly.

I thought you were a fan of productivity growth? Why not try to find ways of providing that infrastructure at reduced cost and more efficiently?

Driving two tonne, single occupanT, living room sized boxes of steel two miles to work is ANTI-GROWTH.

If you want to work in R&D to find a more productive alternative to transport infrastructure then be my guest, but none have been discovered yet.

Which is why we need to invest in what does exist.

Roads are critical transport infrastructure, which is why the Dutch have considerably more roads per square km and per population than we do.

Building roads allows building cycle paths too, as the Dutch know.

If you want to follow Dutch policy then do so, and lets start investing. Its not either/or, its both.

Every time someone like me uses a bike or bus to commute to work, they leave more space on the road for people like you on your 25 mile car commute.

That's productivity growth. More with less.

And you're welcome 🥰

That depends.

On a dedicated cycle path segregated from but next to the road? Absolutely you're completely correct, and I 100% support building those with new roads.

On a shared single lane each direction road? No, that's not the case. Length wise the cyclist takes the same space as a small car so no space saved, width wise it's less but unless the road is wide enough to fit both it's not safe to drive alongside and overtake a cyclist in the same lane of traffic most of the time.

Yes if I'm behind a cyclist I can overtake it, and I will. But I also need to do so safely, which means slowing down to the cyclists speed if there's oncoming traffic and then overtaking when there's a gap in the oncoming traffic.

Which means that the cyclist simply slows down traffic and no space is saved. Unless you want me to overtake the cyclist dangerously, but I don't think either of us want that now do we?

Which is why again there's no alternative to building both roads AND cycle paths. We need both.

Nonsense. On my commute I overtake more cars than overtake me (roughly 60:5). And those who do overtake me find my calves flexed in front of them soon after.

But if you're worried about cyclists holding you up, why not provide a nice cycle lane? Costs significantly less than your £1 trillion road building project.

Leave your city bubble and try and overtake cars.

I completely support building cycle lanes alongside new roads. But no it doesn't cost less to do so, both need doing. If anything it increases costs to aid better cycling but I support that as I'm pro choice and want to support people's choice to cycle even if it costs a bit more.

Why not pop one alongside an existing
road?

You're pro-road, that's all. You'd spend £1 trillion on them instead of investing in housing.

Where alongside an existing road?

Undeveloped land? Absolutely go for it. For rural roads that's an option.

But if there's houses or gardens or shops alongside the road would you bulldoze them?

It’s not either/or, we need both. We need infrastructure AND housing. Our
population has grown by a quarter in a generation but our last major investment in our infrastructure was two generations ago. We desperately need both now.

Be smart and you can include public transport too.

Build new towns and cities, with arterial roads which have a cycle path, road lanes for cars and tram tracks down the middle, with LTNs off the arteries for housing.

The Elizabeth Line and Thames Tideway are both recent. T5 was 15 years ago as well.!

Oh, where about in the North are those located?

Interesting and clear graphic chronology is available in this link below, click it and click the years and cycle through them from 1958 to today. Almost all our motorways were built by the end of the 70s, there hasn't been any major investment in two generations despite a 25% population growth since then.

https://www.roads.org.uk/motorway/chronology?year=1958

Razedabode said:

This whole HS2 debacle I think speaks to a wider worry that a lot have - that we simply can’t get anything big built anymore. And when we do, it takes ages and is fraught with politics

Governing by opinion poll - not because it was always the right thing to do - has led us to this ridiculous situation where the Tories are the face of decline

TimS said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

RandallFlagg said:

The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.

Well, that's right.

If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.

It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.

Casino_Royale said:

RandallFlagg said:

The only thing I can conclude from the HS2, IHT and other debaclespolicy proposals is that HYUFD is right and Sunak has given up winning the next election and is concentrating on a core vote strategy which might retain the Tories 200 or seats. It's about stopping voters going to Reform and preventing an outright annihilation.

Well, that's right.

If you no longer have a chance of winning 300+ seats and your choice is either (1) everyone really disliking you and getting 0 seats or (2) 70% of everyone absolutely hating you but 30% voting for you so you save 200 seats then, logically, as a politician you'll plump for the latter.

It's not in Britain's interest to have the Opposition totally wiped out either.

I would normally agree, but the Tory Party have jumped the shark completely. They and their deluded supporters need annihilation to teach them the error of their ways.

Yes, we seem to have reached the point where closure / vindication / karma requires a thrashing. After the thrashing they can come back, but not before.

So if they lose narrowly in 2024 it’s possible the thrashing is just deferred. Might one argue 2019 was the final thrashing that allowed Labour to move on from 2010?