I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
if, as reported, Streeting has said that he is going to resign and trigger an election, then why wait until tomorrow?
Because it’s thought of as being a bit unseemly when today is about the King, apparently.
No, I don’t really understand that either.
#RepublicNow
I'm currently read "Trial by Battle" by Sumption. At the moment Eddie 3 is invading Scotland and laying waste. Its always good to remember a happier time when the King needed parliament to agree to let him raise taxes. The long term history makes it worth keeping the fiction of the Kings Speech.
I assume Streeting definitely has the numbers to trigger a leadership race? It would be truly hilarious if he was the only one over the top and then he couldn't get enough backing to trigger the race.
James Cleverly is his campaign manager so nothing can go wrong.
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
Market sentiment is not rational, but it is real.
Could the U.K. sustain borrowing another £10/20/30/50Bn a year indefinitely? Probably, for all sorts of reasons, albeit with an inflationary impact.
Would the markets like it? No.
Could any PM persist in the face of a market panic? You’d think a left wing PM with a majority of seventy squillion could, but no.
Trussites, Corbynites, Fargists, and Burnhamites should all be united in their disgust for the disproportionate power of certain markets (and the total failure of e.g. the pensions market to adjust to predictable events in the case of Truss) and might legitimately be thinking about how they might change things. The trouble is, the answer (to the extent there is one) would rely on a complex web of multinational agreements, which takes everyone but the Burnhamites out of the coalition.
If you want to borrow billions of other people’s money, you have to negotiate the interest rate with them.
I get that this upsets people who want to borrow without end.
If you don’t want to give markets power, don’t use the market.
I really do think one of the issues with the OBR is that just looks at the overall budget and that we don't have separate figures for day to day spending and investment projects. Now that latter pot would be a grade A disaster zone with the nuclear power stations and HS2 but at least it would be clear that it's for investment projects...
The markets know that “investment” would become everything because “we need money for running the NHS/schools/etc just for this year. We will be good next year.”
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 34m It’s going to be Streeting vs Rayner, then; I think Starmer won’t stand, nor will Miliband; Burnham will complain but won’t be let in
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 32m There may be other candidates (John Healey, Darren Jones, Bridget Phillipson, Lucy Powell), but it will come down to Streeting and Rayner
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
Largely because those countries are seen to have a plan to repay borrowings, therefore are seen as reasonable credit risks. That may not apply to borrowing to fund routine expenditure, or for tax cuts as Truss found out.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
We could have saved £80bn by accepting that simple fact
Yes, we achieve that capacity by separating out the fast and slow trains. A mix of slow and fast trains on the same network is a massive kicker for capacity, because the fast train has to leave a massive gap before setting off after the slow trains sets off. Consider a line, say, 60 miles long with ten local stations on and a big station at each end. The fast train can get between the two in 40 minutes, the stopper takes an hour and a half. You can maybe fit two fast trains and one slow trains an hour on this bit of track (fast train sets off at 0 and 52 minutes past the hour, arriving at 40 and 92 minutes past the hour, slow train sets off at one minute past the hour arriving at 91 minutes past the hour - even this isn't really idea because there's a big gap between the first and second fast train and then a short gap to the next one the next hour). So three trains. But if you separate out the fast and slow trains, you can fairly comfortably get 15 fast trains and 15 slow trains an hour. So 30 trains.
That is a lot more trains.
TLDR: high speed rail is about capacity. Speed is a red herring.
Capacity doesn't require 300 mph trains, only an extra pair of tracks.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
No point building it to be slow - speed is capacity as the fast you shift trains through a zone, the more trains can pass through it per an hour.
Henry Zephman says the £5m is a "gift", so even though Farage should have registered a "donation" that was received 12 months before being elected to Parliament, Zephman suggests as a "gift" this is different.
Miliband shortening significantly such that the four favourites are now all pretty close:
Streeting 4.6 Burnham 5 Rayner 6 Miliband 6.4
After that, some money for Al Carns who is now clear in 5th position:
Carns 20 Mahmood 23 Farage 26 Cooper 29
The odds I'm looking at differ a tad but not that significantly. What the markets are telling us, above all, is that Streeting, Rayner and Miliband are all preparing to announce that they are standing but that no-one else of any standing has given any indication of making a serious attempt.
The short odds on Burnham will surely lengthen further - his only chance of next PM now is if Starmer prevails in the ballot and a path back into parliament is subsequently found for him, rather implausibly still as it would still need Starmer's blessing. The odds on Burnham should be well into double digits.
Rayner and Miliband's odds are longer because each is vying to be the left candidate. It's hard to see both Rayner and Miliband getting 81 supporters without the other standing down so I expect the one with the fewest initial supporters to withdraw. Whichever one of the two goes forward should then become favourite.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
No point building it to be slow - speed is capacity as the fast you shift trains through a zone, the more trains can pass through it per an hour.
Not when you build for speed the way we did. Insane
I assume Streeting definitely has the numbers to trigger a leadership race? It would be truly hilarious if he was the only one over the top and then he couldn't get enough backing to trigger the race.
Unless he's an idiot Streeting must have 100+ nominations lined up. Otherwise it's a risk too far...
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
Market sentiment is not rational, but it is real.
Could the U.K. sustain borrowing another £10/20/30/50Bn a year indefinitely? Probably, for all sorts of reasons, albeit with an inflationary impact.
Would the markets like it? No.
Could any PM persist in the face of a market panic? You’d think a left wing PM with a majority of seventy squillion could, but no.
Trussites, Corbynites, Fargists, and Burnhamites should all be united in their disgust for the disproportionate power of certain markets (and the total failure of e.g. the pensions market to adjust to predictable events in the case of Truss) and might legitimately be thinking about how they might change things. The trouble is, the answer (to the extent there is one) would rely on a complex web of multinational agreements, which takes everyone but the Burnhamites out of the coalition.
If you want to borrow billions of other people’s money, you have to negotiate the interest rate with them.
I get that this upsets people who want to borrow without end.
If you don’t want to give markets power, don’t use the market.
I don’t disagree with anything you have written. However market sentiment comes from people, and people do silly things when they wind each other up. The suggestion, which is really what I was replying to, that a rational market analysis of the UK would view it as a particularly risky lending prospect is just not right.
I do think there’s a market failure baked in there. Though there is a separate question of whether you’d want to fix it, because you then might open up some really silly policy choices.
Also, yes you’re borrowing someone else’s money, but when you are a nation state they are choosing to lend to you for reasons of suitability, (lack of) volatility, and liquidity. So if the pricing of the likes of gilts goes too high, you’re going to inevitably pass on a price premium to every other type of debt.
Maybe SKS can still save himself with another barnstorming speech.
It's a great pleasure to be here with you all today. You know, things are changing fast. We live in a world of change. The silicon chip is changing our lives. Quality of life is becoming more and more important. Environment, conservation, problems of pollution, the future of our children, and our children's children. These are today's issues. There is, quite rightly, increasing concern about my premiership. I'm happy to reassure you, members of the Cabinet,.oh 'm so sorry. It's yesterday's speech.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
No point building it to be slow - speed is capacity as the fast you shift trains through a zone, the more trains can pass through it per an hour.
Not when you build for speed the way we did. Insane
I didn’t realise you were an expert in railway design as well
Henry Zephman says the £5m is a "gift", so even though Farage should have registered a "donation" that was received 12 months before being elected to Parliament, Zephman suggests as a "gift" this is different.
I find it hard to find a reading of the Code of Conduct that doesn't conclude that Farage should have reported the donation, or at least contacted the office about it.
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
How would that work? Burnham into the Lords? I don’t think there is any constitutional block to the King appointing him PM even just as a mayor.
Though it would be ludicrous
See Mark Carney in Canada. He ran for leadership without having a seat
He wasn't a member of the Labour Party.
Carney also called a snap general election after being elected Liberal Leader and PM and won a seat at that election
That would be brave/ foolhardy for Starmer's successor.
Not yet. Neither I suspect does Rayner, yet. But both can get to 81, for one will eventually have to withdraw in favour of the other. Burnham should swallow his pride and be prepared to act as kingmaker (or queenmaker).
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
No point building it to be slow - speed is capacity as the fast you shift trains through a zone, the more trains can pass through it per an hour.
Mm, up to a point. Fast trains need much more headway. The number of trains per hour you can get through a particular point isn't actually massively dependent on the speed of them (assuming enough capacity at stations).
Henry Zephman says the £5m is a "gift", so even though Farage should have registered a "donation" that was received 12 months before being elected to Parliament, Zephman suggests as a "gift" this is different.
I find it hard to find a reading of the Code of Conduct that doesn't conclude that Farage should have reported the donation, or at least contacted the office about it.
When is a donation a gift? Farage seems to think he is watertight which suggests the system is broken.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
No point building it to be slow - speed is capacity as the fast you shift trains through a zone, the more trains can pass through it per an hour.
Not when you build for speed the way we did. Insane
I didn’t realise you were an expert in railway design as well
Or you could just apologise for entirely misreading my comment and replying to something I never said. Be a man
If Johnathan Reynolds is reading - please make some leadership noises as it would help me a lot. Thanks. (I had you down as a well spoke safe pair of hands much later, but this could be your time! Go for it!)
So can we expect another crop of resignations today or will they be announced tomorrow alongside Wes? He could really do with taking a serious number of the Cabinet with him because that will make Starmer's position simply untenable. He needs to knock Starmer out fast given the advantages the incumbent has.
Saying that he will support Andy Burnham's return to the Commons might be a good tactical move too.
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
Market sentiment is not rational, but it is real.
Could the U.K. sustain borrowing another £10/20/30/50Bn a year indefinitely? Probably, for all sorts of reasons, albeit with an inflationary impact.
Would the markets like it? No.
Could any PM persist in the face of a market panic? You’d think a left wing PM with a majority of seventy squillion could, but no.
Trussites, Corbynites, Fargists, and Burnhamites should all be united in their disgust for the disproportionate power of certain markets (and the total failure of e.g. the pensions market to adjust to predictable events in the case of Truss) and might legitimately be thinking about how they might change things. The trouble is, the answer (to the extent there is one) would rely on a complex web of multinational agreements, which takes everyone but the Burnhamites out of the coalition.
If you want to borrow billions of other people’s money, you have to negotiate the interest rate with them.
I get that this upsets people who want to borrow without end.
If you don’t want to give markets power, don’t use the market.
I don’t disagree with anything you have written. However market sentiment comes from people, and people do silly things when they wind each other up. The suggestion, which is really what I was replying to, that a rational market analysis of the UK would view it as a particularly risky lending prospect is just not right.
I do think there’s a market failure baked in there. Though there is a separate question of whether you’d want to fix it, because you then might open up some really silly policy choices.
Also, yes you’re borrowing someone else’s money, but when you are a nation state they are choosing to lend to you for reasons of suitability, (lack of) volatility, and liquidity. So if the pricing of the likes of gilts goes too high, you’re going to inevitably pass on a price premium to every other type of debt.
The markets are pricing in the fact that everyone in current politics, other than the current PM/Chancellor is either magic money tree’ers or populists who will balloon the debt (see US)
Henry Zephman says the £5m is a "gift", so even though Farage should have registered a "donation" that was received 12 months before being elected to Parliament, Zephman suggests as a "gift" this is different.
I find it hard to find a reading of the Code of Conduct that doesn't conclude that Farage should have reported the donation, or at least contacted the office about it.
When is a donation a gift? Farage seems to think he is watertight which suggests the system is broken.
No, it suggests Farage is lying his ass off, Trump-style.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
We could have saved £80bn by accepting that simple fact
Yes, we achieve that capacity by separating out the fast and slow trains. A mix of slow and fast trains on the same network is a massive kicker for capacity, because the fast train has to leave a massive gap before setting off after the slow trains sets off. Consider a line, say, 60 miles long with ten local stations on and a big station at each end. The fast train can get between the two in 40 minutes, the stopper takes an hour and a half. You can maybe fit two fast trains and one slow trains an hour on this bit of track (fast train sets off at 0 and 52 minutes past the hour, arriving at 40 and 92 minutes past the hour, slow train sets off at one minute past the hour arriving at 91 minutes past the hour - even this isn't really idea because there's a big gap between the first and second fast train and then a short gap to the next one the next hour). So three trains. But if you separate out the fast and slow trains, you can fairly comfortably get 15 fast trains and 15 slow trains an hour. So 30 trains.
That is a lot more trains.
TLDR: high speed rail is about capacity. Speed is a red herring.
Capacity doesn't require 300 mph trains, only an extra pair of tracks.
HS2 = ridiculously over-specced.
You can blame Osborne for the over speccing of HS2 IIRC. He turned it into some kind of demonstration of national virility, perhaps in order to get skeptical Conservative MPs to vote for it at all. For much the same reason Conservative MPs were convinced to vote for it by promising to bury the line in tunnels or cuttings for much of it’s length so as to minimise the visual impact on their voters, vastly increasing the cost to build the thing.
But Cookie is right: separating your fast & slow trains onto separate tracks radically increases the capacity of your railway network for the reasons he states. We didn’t need a 300mph railway, but we did (and still do) need a new 200mph railway.
Sunak’s decision to cut HS2 off at the knees after we had built all the expensive bits was the most ludicrous piece of economic self-injury since ... well the last time the UK government did something stupid. Take your pick of those I guess.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
The issue around HS2 was that it was sold as about getting to the 'North' a few minutes faster (which as you say isn't really needed) but was actually about capacity. And over specified on that basis.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
We could have saved £80bn by accepting that simple fact
Have you ever tried getting on a train to Wick and timing how long that takes?
EXCL: If Wes Streeting announces his run for leadership tomorrow, the soft left say they will not turn to Angela Rayner but stick with their Plan A of Andy Burnham
Tribune exec MPs are expected to push Labour's ruling body to allow for Burnham's inclusion – even though that means allowing a whole by-election before the race begins
Their hope: force the issue to go to full NEC rather than the small officers group, where Burnham might have a better chance – and I'm told Ellie Reeves was in favour of allowing that to happen last time
Does anyone understand what that even means? Is he seriously considering leaving Streeting in post whilst they have a competition about the leadership? Surely Streeting has to resign or be sacked.
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
Market sentiment is not rational, but it is real.
Could the U.K. sustain borrowing another £10/20/30/50Bn a year indefinitely? Probably, for all sorts of reasons, albeit with an inflationary impact.
Would the markets like it? No.
Could any PM persist in the face of a market panic? You’d think a left wing PM with a majority of seventy squillion could, but no.
Trussites, Corbynites, Fargists, and Burnhamites should all be united in their disgust for the disproportionate power of certain markets (and the total failure of e.g. the pensions market to adjust to predictable events in the case of Truss) and might legitimately be thinking about how they might change things. The trouble is, the answer (to the extent there is one) would rely on a complex web of multinational agreements, which takes everyone but the Burnhamites out of the coalition.
If you want to borrow billions of other people’s money, you have to negotiate the interest rate with them.
I get that this upsets people who want to borrow without end.
If you don’t want to give markets power, don’t use the market.
I don’t disagree with anything you have written. However market sentiment comes from people, and people do silly things when they wind each other up. The suggestion, which is really what I was replying to, that a rational market analysis of the UK would view it as a particularly risky lending prospect is just not right.
I do think there’s a market failure baked in there. Though there is a separate question of whether you’d want to fix it, because you then might open up some really silly policy choices.
Also, yes you’re borrowing someone else’s money, but when you are a nation state they are choosing to lend to you for reasons of suitability, (lack of) volatility, and liquidity. So if the pricing of the likes of gilts goes too high, you’re going to inevitably pass on a price premium to every other type of debt.
The markets are pricing in the fact that everyone in current politics, other than the current PM/Chancellor is either magic money tree’ers or populists who will balloon the debt (see US)
The weird thing about the MMT crowd is that a) their description of the economy is essentially correct (it’s just standard macro economics re-labelled) and b) it’s proponents instantly jump from “the Government can print money to fund it’s obligations” to “the Government /should/ print money to fund it’s obligations” without a single thought as to when or why that might be a bad idea.
The sadly ironic thing about our current economic circumstances is that the Government should have printed great piles of £ during the post-2008 crash period when interest rates were on the floor & the markets were basically screaming at the Government to spend spend spend but the moment a Government gets into power that’s actually willing to do that, the economic circumstances change, interest rates rest to 5+% and the Government becomes fiscally constrained by inflationary pressures.
But that’s what the voters wanted (in the aggregate), so that’s what they got.
EXCL: If Wes Streeting announces his run for leadership tomorrow, the soft left say they will not turn to Angela Rayner but stick with their Plan A of Andy Burnham
Tribune exec MPs are expected to push Labour's ruling body to allow for Burnham's inclusion – even though that means allowing a whole by-election before the race begins
Their hope: force the issue to go to full NEC rather than the small officers group, where Burnham might have a better chance – and I'm told Ellie Reeves was in favour of allowing that to happen last time
Please let this happen, and then please let him lose the subsequent by-election.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
No point building it to be slow - speed is capacity as the fast you shift trains through a zone, the more trains can pass through it per an hour.
The speed it was specced for meant noise, which meant tunnels, which meant cost+.
And the arguments over that meant multiyear delays and more cost.
If Johnathan Reynolds is reading - please make some leadership noises as it would help me a lot. Thanks. (I had you down as a well spoke safe pair of hands much later, but this could be your time! Go for it!)
Remember that unless he retires now, Starmer will also be on the ballot and might win, so bets on Reynolds (or Farage or Polanski or Badenoch) to be next Prime Minister would still be in play.
Henry Zephman says the £5m is a "gift", so even though Farage should have registered a "donation" that was received 12 months before being elected to Parliament, Zephman suggests as a "gift" this is different.
I find it hard to find a reading of the Code of Conduct that doesn't conclude that Farage should have reported the donation, or at least contacted the office about it.
When is a donation a gift? Farage seems to think he is watertight which suggests the system is broken.
It was clearly a gift.
You know how people of means often make financial provision for loved ones so they are safe and secure for the rest of their lives?
Well that's obviously how Christopher Harborne feels about Nigel Farage.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
No point building it to be slow - speed is capacity as the fast you shift trains through a zone, the more trains can pass through it per an hour.
Not when you build for speed the way we did. Insane
I didn’t realise you were an expert in railway design as well
Or you could just apologise for entirely misreading my comment and replying to something I never said. Be a man
You said, about HS2, “we never needed it” when we do. We need the capacity it would give us. If anything we need more HS2.
The most crazy thing in British politics at the moment is the way in which a seat is trying to be found for Andy Burnham to return to parliament. Such a plan will probably fail. Voters don't like being manipulated in that way.
Suspect Wes has the votes to get a contest but not the votes to win it.
Potentially Ed M. and others will sit it out, allow Starmer to win and increase the soft left faction in cabinet.
Once the contest starts it suits precisely no-one for Keir Starmer to remain in office (other than Keir Starmer).
He appears stubborn enough to try and fight a contest, but I’m not convinced that line will hold once other cabinet figures come out and start exploring bids.
Farage to be investigated by the parliamentary standards commissioner
Popcorn shortage becomes critical.
This is blatantly political. This is how they bring down genuine, talented right wing leaders. They pinned some absurd crime on le pen. They’re trying it on bardella. They had a go at Hitler, openly mocking his paintings. They did lawfare on Trump
Who the hell hasn’t sometimes taken a multi million pound gift from a Thai tycoon with a weird name change. It’s what happens. Life goes on. Leave nigel alone
Even if Farage were subject to a recall petition, he would win the by election.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
The issue around HS2 was that it was sold as about getting to the 'North' a few minutes faster (which as you say isn't really needed) but was actually about capacity. And over specified on that basis.
Yes. Even if you must have more speed AIUI the engineers wanted us to have the fastest trains in the universe - out of pride - which is just bonkers in a country as compact as Britain
With all the money not wasted we could have built a cross rail from Liverpool they manc etc to Leeds, maybe even up to Newcastle. Fast (but not high speed) and very regular trains. Every 15 minutes. Really link these cities in a way not done before. A clean convenient shuttle across the north
That would have been transformational. Creating a new metropolitan area to rival london with all that this brings
The most crazy thing in British politics at the moment is the way in which a seat is trying to be found for Andy Burnham to return to parliament. Such a plan will probably fail. Voters don't like being manipulated in that way.
The most crazy thing in British politics at the moment is the way in which a seat is trying to be found for Andy Burnham to return to parliament. Such a plan will probably fail. Voters don't like being manipulated in that way.
People keep saying that but I suspect most constituencies would be quite excited about being represented by the PM. I fancy his chances if he can get someone to stand down.
They would be stupid to not let Burnham run, regardless of the rules. For the interests of party, never-mind country, stability at the very least the argument needs to be settled
How would that work? Burnham into the Lords? I don’t think there is any constitutional block to the King appointing him PM even just as a mayor.
Though it would be ludicrous
See Mark Carney in Canada. He ran for leadership without having a seat
He wasn't a member of the Labour Party.
Carney also called a snap general election after being elected Liberal Leader and PM and won a seat at that election
Yes. But he didn't have to. Fact is it's a different country with different rules.
As far as I am aware, there’s no rule of law that the Prime Minister needs to be in Parliament, never mind in the Commons. It’s just a convention and conventions can be broken.
Labours rulebook will however require its leader to be an MP
The most crazy thing in British politics at the moment is the way in which a seat is trying to be found for Andy Burnham to return to parliament. Such a plan will probably fail. Voters don't like being manipulated in that way.
If he cannot carry a constituency on the basis that he will run to be Labour leader and, in effect, Prime Minister then he is a busted flush. He can promise the voters whatever he wants on the basis that it will become his Government’s programme. That isn’t manipulation, that’s literally our whole system of government.
OK then. Why hasn't Canada at 111% debt to GDP been subject to a bond strike and forced to institute swingeing welfare cuts? Since it isn't in the Euro?
Market sentiment is not rational, but it is real.
Could the U.K. sustain borrowing another £10/20/30/50Bn a year indefinitely? Probably, for all sorts of reasons, albeit with an inflationary impact.
Would the markets like it? No.
Could any PM persist in the face of a market panic? You’d think a left wing PM with a majority of seventy squillion could, but no.
Trussites, Corbynites, Fargists, and Burnhamites should all be united in their disgust for the disproportionate power of certain markets (and the total failure of e.g. the pensions market to adjust to predictable events in the case of Truss) and might legitimately be thinking about how they might change things. The trouble is, the answer (to the extent there is one) would rely on a complex web of multinational agreements, which takes everyone but the Burnhamites out of the coalition.
If you want to borrow billions of other people’s money, you have to negotiate the interest rate with them.
I get that this upsets people who want to borrow without end.
If you don’t want to give markets power, don’t use the market.
I don’t disagree with anything you have written. However market sentiment comes from people, and people do silly things when they wind each other up. The suggestion, which is really what I was replying to, that a rational market analysis of the UK would view it as a particularly risky lending prospect is just not right.
I do think there’s a market failure baked in there. Though there is a separate question of whether you’d want to fix it, because you then might open up some really silly policy choices.
Also, yes you’re borrowing someone else’s money, but when you are a nation state they are choosing to lend to you for reasons of suitability, (lack of) volatility, and liquidity. So if the pricing of the likes of gilts goes too high, you’re going to inevitably pass on a price premium to every other type of debt.
The markets are pricing in the fact that everyone in current politics, other than the current PM/Chancellor is either magic money tree’ers or populists who will balloon the debt (see US)
The weird thing about the MMT crowd is that a) their description of the economy is essentially correct (it’s just standard macro economics re-labelled) and b) it’s proponents instantly jump from “the Government can print money to fund it’s obligations” to “the Government /should/ print money to fund it’s obligations” without a single thought as to when or why that might be a bad idea.
The sadly ironic thing about our current economic circumstances is that the Government should have printed great piles of £ during the post-2008 crash period when interest rates were on the floor & the markets were basically screaming at the Government to spend spend spend but the moment a Government gets into power that’s actually willing to do that, the economic circumstances change, interest rates rest to 5+% and the Government becomes fiscally constrained by inflationary pressures.
But that’s what the voters wanted (in the aggregate), so that’s what they got.
Suspect Wes has the votes to get a contest but not the votes to win it.
Potentially Ed M. and others will sit it out, allow Starmer to win and increase the soft left faction in cabinet.
Once the contest starts it suits precisely no-one for Keir Starmer to remain in office (other than Keir Starmer).
He appears stubborn enough to try and fight a contest, but I’m not convinced that line will hold once other cabinet figures come out and start exploring bids.
I don't think Starmer will stand if Streeting gets the 81 MPs.
The most crazy thing in British politics at the moment is the way in which a seat is trying to be found for Andy Burnham to return to parliament. Such a plan will probably fail. Voters don't like being manipulated in that way.
Apparently when Black Rod knocked on the doors of Parliament a wag shouted, "not now Andy!"
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
No point building it to be slow - speed is capacity as the fast you shift trains through a zone, the more trains can pass through it per an hour.
Not when you build for speed the way we did. Insane
I didn’t realise you were an expert in railway design as well
Or you could just apologise for entirely misreading my comment and replying to something I never said. Be a man
You said, about HS2, “we never needed it” when we do. We need the capacity it would give us. If anything we need more HS2.
The inability to apologise for a clear and obvious error is effeminate and childish, and a tiny bit cringeworthy
It’s a lesson I learned early and it’s served me well. If you fuck up - from small things to big things - just say sorry. It doesn’t diminish you, it earns respect
Politicians could benefit from this advice, as well
Does anyone understand what that even means? Is he seriously considering leaving Streeting in post whilst they have a competition about the leadership? Surely Streeting has to resign or be sacked.
It's an attempt at a trap. if Streeting doesn't resign it looks weak. If he does resign he can be portrayed as undermining the serious business of Government.
I suspect he bought the trap from ACME and forgot to install the spring.
Does anyone understand what that even means? Is he seriously considering leaving Streeting in post whilst they have a competition about the leadership? Surely Streeting has to resign or be sacked.
It's an attempt at a trap. if Streeting doesn't resign it looks weak. If he does resign he can be portrayed as undermining the serious business of Government.
I suspect he bought the trap from ACME and forgot to install the spring.
Clearly I am just not sufficiently cunning. Thanks for the explanation.
if, as reported, Streeting has said that he is going to resign and trigger an election, then why wait until tomorrow?
Because it’s thought of as being a bit unseemly when today is about the King, apparently.
No, I don’t really understand that either.
Other potential candidates will already be touting for nominations, the Labour Party out in the country and in the unions will already be considering who to support, and the media is wall-to-wall leadership speculation. Effectively the contest has started already, unless Streeting bottles it tomorrow.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
No point building it to be slow - speed is capacity as the fast you shift trains through a zone, the more trains can pass through it per an hour.
Not when you build for speed the way we did. Insane
I didn’t realise you were an expert in railway design as well
Or you could just apologise for entirely misreading my comment and replying to something I never said. Be a man
You said, about HS2, “we never needed it” when we do. We need the capacity it would give us. If anything we need more HS2.
The inability to apologise for a clear and obvious error is effeminate and childish, and a tiny bit cringeworthy
It’s a lesson I learned early and it’s served me well. If you fuck up - from small things to big things - just say sorry. It doesn’t diminish you, it earns respect
Politicians could benefit from this advice, as well
You’re just gaslighting me now. I literally quoted you. You said that we never needed HS2, we need more capacity but HS2 is for more capacity. I have nothing to apologise for and no error was made.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
We could have saved £80bn by accepting that simple fact
Yes, we achieve that capacity by separating out the fast and slow trains. A mix of slow and fast trains on the same network is a massive kicker for capacity, because the fast train has to leave a massive gap before setting off after the slow trains sets off. Consider a line, say, 60 miles long with ten local stations on and a big station at each end. The fast train can get between the two in 40 minutes, the stopper takes an hour and a half. You can maybe fit two fast trains and one slow trains an hour on this bit of track (fast train sets off at 0 and 52 minutes past the hour, arriving at 40 and 92 minutes past the hour, slow train sets off at one minute past the hour arriving at 91 minutes past the hour - even this isn't really idea because there's a big gap between the first and second fast train and then a short gap to the next one the next hour). So three trains. But if you separate out the fast and slow trains, you can fairly comfortably get 15 fast trains and 15 slow trains an hour. So 30 trains.
That is a lot more trains.
TLDR: high speed rail is about capacity. Speed is a red herring.
As any player of Transport Fever will already understand
The most crazy thing in British politics at the moment is the way in which a seat is trying to be found for Andy Burnham to return to parliament. Such a plan will probably fail. Voters don't like being manipulated in that way.
If he cannot carry a constituency on the basis that he will run to be Labour leader and, in effect, Prime Minister then he is a busted flush. He can promise the voters whatever he wants on the basis that it will become his Government’s programme. That isn’t manipulation, that’s literally our whole system of government.
Who is going to vote for an MP that is going to do nothing for them locally because he's busy elsewhere. Probably the only place you could do it is Darlington attached to another expansion of Treasury North into Government North..
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
No point building it to be slow - speed is capacity as the fast you shift trains through a zone, the more trains can pass through it per an hour.
Not when you build for speed the way we did. Insane
I didn’t realise you were an expert in railway design as well
Or you could just apologise for entirely misreading my comment and replying to something I never said. Be a man
You said, about HS2, “we never needed it” when we do. We need the capacity it would give us. If anything we need more HS2.
The inability to apologise for a clear and obvious error is effeminate and childish, and a tiny bit cringeworthy
It’s a lesson I learned early and it’s served me well. If you fuck up - from small things to big things - just say sorry. It doesn’t diminish you, it earns respect
Politicians could benefit from this advice, as well
You’re just gaslighting me now. I literally quoted you. You said that we never needed HS2, we need more capacity but HS2 is for more capacity. I have nothing to apologise for and no error was made.
Capacity just requires another pair of tracks.
That's why the Lizzie Line can go all the way along the GWR main line to Reading out west, but out east it has to terminate at Shenfield (near Brentwood) because the GER is only two tracks beyond there (towards either Southend or Chelmsford).
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
We could have saved £80bn by accepting that simple fact
Yes, we achieve that capacity by separating out the fast and slow trains. A mix of slow and fast trains on the same network is a massive kicker for capacity, because the fast train has to leave a massive gap before setting off after the slow trains sets off. Consider a line, say, 60 miles long with ten local stations on and a big station at each end. The fast train can get between the two in 40 minutes, the stopper takes an hour and a half. You can maybe fit two fast trains and one slow trains an hour on this bit of track (fast train sets off at 0 and 52 minutes past the hour, arriving at 40 and 92 minutes past the hour, slow train sets off at one minute past the hour arriving at 91 minutes past the hour - even this isn't really idea because there's a big gap between the first and second fast train and then a short gap to the next one the next hour). So three trains. But if you separate out the fast and slow trains, you can fairly comfortably get 15 fast trains and 15 slow trains an hour. So 30 trains.
That is a lot more trains.
TLDR: high speed rail is about capacity. Speed is a red herring.
As any player of Transport Fever will already understand
Does anyone understand what that even means? Is he seriously considering leaving Streeting in post whilst they have a competition about the leadership? Surely Streeting has to resign or be sacked.
He’s making sure that the chaos monkey is sitting firmly upon Streeting’s shoulders
”You’re just gaslighting me now. I literally quoted you. You said that we never needed HS2, we need more capacity but HS2 is for more capacity. I have nothing to apologise for and no error was made”
+++++++
Do you want me to go through this? Really? In my original comment I said this. Look. It’s up there. Go see. I said this, after saying speed was unimportant:
WHAT WE NEEDED WAS MORE CAPACITY
To which you replied
“HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about”
I mean. It’s there. Black and white. What a ridiculous position to take. You got it wrong. You just can’t say Oops sorry
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
No point building it to be slow - speed is capacity as the fast you shift trains through a zone, the more trains can pass through it per an hour.
Not when you build for speed the way we did. Insane
I didn’t realise you were an expert in railway design as well
Or you could just apologise for entirely misreading my comment and replying to something I never said. Be a man
You said, about HS2, “we never needed it” when we do. We need the capacity it would give us. If anything we need more HS2.
The inability to apologise for a clear and obvious error is effeminate and childish, and a tiny bit cringeworthy
It’s a lesson I learned early and it’s served me well. If you fuck up - from small things to big things - just say sorry. It doesn’t diminish you, it earns respect
Politicians could benefit from this advice, as well
You’re just gaslighting me now. I literally quoted you. You said that we never needed HS2, we need more capacity but HS2 is for more capacity. I have nothing to apologise for and no error was made.
Capacity just requires another pair of tracks.
That's why the Lizzie Line can go all the way along the GWR main line to Reading out west, but out east it has to terminate at Shenfield (near Brentwood) because the GER is only two tracks beyond there (towards either Southend or Chelmsford).
As set out by others, speed is also capacity. More trains per hour.
Does anyone understand what that even means? Is he seriously considering leaving Streeting in post whilst they have a competition about the leadership? Surely Streeting has to resign or be sacked.
He’s making sure that the chaos monkey is sitting firmly upon Streeting’s shoulders
He is the chaos monkey. His government is falling apart.
The most crazy thing in British politics at the moment is the way in which a seat is trying to be found for Andy Burnham to return to parliament. Such a plan will probably fail. Voters don't like being manipulated in that way.
Apparently when Black Rod knocked on the doors of Parliament a wag shouted, "not now Andy!"
On the TV you could only hear the laughter from inside
The most crazy thing in British politics at the moment is the way in which a seat is trying to be found for Andy Burnham to return to parliament. Such a plan will probably fail. Voters don't like being manipulated in that way.
If he cannot carry a constituency on the basis that he will run to be Labour leader and, in effect, Prime Minister then he is a busted flush. He can promise the voters whatever he wants on the basis that it will become his Government’s programme. That isn’t manipulation, that’s literally our whole system of government.
Who is going to vote for an MP that is going to do nothing for them locally because he's busy elsewhere. Probably the only place you could do it is Darlington attached to another expansion of Treasury North into Government North..
“As Prime Minister I would do X, Y and Z” where X, Y and Z are the things most important to voters in that constituency. Most MPs can promise nowt because they have little power. Even in byelections people by and large vote for governments not actual people
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
We could have saved £80bn by accepting that simple fact
Yes, we achieve that capacity by separating out the fast and slow trains. A mix of slow and fast trains on the same network is a massive kicker for capacity, because the fast train has to leave a massive gap before setting off after the slow trains sets off. Consider a line, say, 60 miles long with ten local stations on and a big station at each end. The fast train can get between the two in 40 minutes, the stopper takes an hour and a half. You can maybe fit two fast trains and one slow trains an hour on this bit of track (fast train sets off at 0 and 52 minutes past the hour, arriving at 40 and 92 minutes past the hour, slow train sets off at one minute past the hour arriving at 91 minutes past the hour - even this isn't really idea because there's a big gap between the first and second fast train and then a short gap to the next one the next hour). So three trains. But if you separate out the fast and slow trains, you can fairly comfortably get 15 fast trains and 15 slow trains an hour. So 30 trains.
That is a lot more trains.
TLDR: high speed rail is about capacity. Speed is a red herring.
As any player of Transport Fever will already understand
Passing lanes, anyone?
How many passing lanes do you need to fit 15 fast trains and 15 slow trains per hour on @Cookie's 60 mile route?
Suspect Wes has the votes to get a contest but not the votes to win it.
Potentially Ed M. and others will sit it out, allow Starmer to win and increase the soft left faction in cabinet.
Once the contest starts it suits precisely no-one for Keir Starmer to remain in office (other than Keir Starmer).
He appears stubborn enough to try and fight a contest, but I’m not convinced that line will hold once other cabinet figures come out and start exploring bids.
The soft left majority inside Labour will prioritise Starmer ahead of Streeting on their ballots. TSE needs to do an explainer of Labour’s voting system in a forthcoming lead.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
We could have saved £80bn by accepting that simple fact
Yes, we achieve that capacity by separating out the fast and slow trains. A mix of slow and fast trains on the same network is a massive kicker for capacity, because the fast train has to leave a massive gap before setting off after the slow trains sets off. Consider a line, say, 60 miles long with ten local stations on and a big station at each end. The fast train can get between the two in 40 minutes, the stopper takes an hour and a half. You can maybe fit two fast trains and one slow trains an hour on this bit of track (fast train sets off at 0 and 52 minutes past the hour, arriving at 40 and 92 minutes past the hour, slow train sets off at one minute past the hour arriving at 91 minutes past the hour - even this isn't really idea because there's a big gap between the first and second fast train and then a short gap to the next one the next hour). So three trains. But if you separate out the fast and slow trains, you can fairly comfortably get 15 fast trains and 15 slow trains an hour. So 30 trains.
That is a lot more trains.
TLDR: high speed rail is about capacity. Speed is a red herring.
As any player of Transport Fever will already understand
Passing lanes, anyone?
How many passing lanes do you need to fit 15 fast trains and 15 slow trains per hour on @Cookie's 60 mile route?
A: Two - one each way. But they both need to be 60 miles long.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
We could have saved £80bn by accepting that simple fact
Have you ever tried getting on a train to Wick and timing how long that takes?
FWIW, my own experience is that the time taken to board a train is entirely uncorrelated with its destination.
Would Keir Starmer stand against Wes Streeting? Yesterday a No 10 insider said that is a card the PM could yet play. They said he would win, and that the soft left, waiting for Burnham, would back Starmer.
But soft left are clear that won't happen. "There is no way in hell that the soft left would back Keir," a well-placed soft left figure says.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
The issue around HS2 was that it was sold as about getting to the 'North' a few minutes faster (which as you say isn't really needed) but was actually about capacity. And over specified on that basis.
Yes. Even if you must have more speed AIUI the engineers wanted us to have the fastest trains in the universe - out of pride - which is just bonkers in a country as compact as Britain
With all the money not wasted we could have built a cross rail from Liverpool they manc etc to Leeds, maybe even up to Newcastle. Fast (but not high speed) and very regular trains. Every 15 minutes. Really link these cities in a way not done before. A clean convenient shuttle across the north
That would have been transformational. Creating a new metropolitan area to rival london with all that this brings
And we’d still have £50bn left
HS2 isn’t that much more expensive for being designed for 350km/h instead of 300km/h.
What made HS2 ridiculously expensive was 1) burying more than half the line between London and Birmingham and 2) the ridiculous procurement rules demanded by the Treasury that made the contractors liable for any faults that developed over the following decades. Bonus 3) building anything in the UK is ridiculously expensive due to planning regulations out the wazoo, see PB discussions passim.
Consider the M6. Longest motorway in the UK at 230 miles. Current motorway building costs in the UK are pushing £100million / mile (ish). So the M6 would cost us about 23billion to build today. How much do you think it would cost if we decided to bury more than half the route in a massive cutting and a bunch of very long tunnels to appease local NIMBYs? Twice as much? Three times as much? More? Probably much, much more actually. Tunnelling is astonishingly expensive per mile compared to ordinary road building.
”You’re just gaslighting me now. I literally quoted you. You said that we never needed HS2, we need more capacity but HS2 is for more capacity. I have nothing to apologise for and no error was made”
+++++++
Do you want me to go through this? Really? In my original comment I said this. Look. It’s up there. Go see. I said this, after saying speed was unimportant:
WHAT WE NEEDED WAS MORE CAPACITY
To which you replied
“HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about”
I mean. It’s there. Black and white. What a ridiculous position to take. You got it wrong. You just can’t say Oops sorry
As we're talking about HS2, the true comedy is train procurement. The HS2 plan was 200m trains run in pairs on the London - Birmingham - Manchester core and able to split to send 1 set off to Liverpool / Leeds / Glasgow etc.
The problem is that with HS2a cancelled, there's literally nowhere north of Birmingham that can berth 400m trains, which means currently the plan would send 200m trains to Manchester etc - a BIG reduction in current capacity.
They're now talking about varying the build at mahoosive contractual cost to build 260m sets. Which then won't fit in the new depot being built to maintain 200m sets. Although on paper they could service them at Birmingham Curzon Street station which is being built with 7 x 400m platforms and needs only one if they are only running to London.
It's an utter farce. Nobody seems interested in noticing the existing Pendolino sets will also be life expired by then so why not build a new fleet of trains to replace them which can tilt off HS2 and do 200mph on it?
The most crazy thing in British politics at the moment is the way in which a seat is trying to be found for Andy Burnham to return to parliament. Such a plan will probably fail. Voters don't like being manipulated in that way.
The most crazy thing in British politics at the moment is the way in which a seat is trying to be found for Andy Burnham to return to parliament. Such a plan will probably fail. Voters don't like being manipulated in that way.
People keep saying that but I suspect most constituencies would be quite excited about being represented by the PM. I fancy his chances if he can get someone to stand down.
Yes. If he does get approved for a byelection (within the leadership contest timetable) I think he's probably our next PM. There'd be a bandwagon effect. He'd win the byelection and then the leadership. His longish price now is because it's very uncertain that the first thing happens - that he gets the opportunity in time.
His other route (Starmer stands vs Streeting, beats him due to votes lent by Burnhamites, allowing Burnham to come in and oust Starmer on a more relaxed timetable) is IMO highly improbable. As is the notion of Rayner or Miliband standing and winning as a 'soft left placeholder PM' with a view to standing down in favour of Burnham if and when he makes it back. That is too clever clever, disrespects the office of PM, and would really piss off the public (inc me in this case).
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
No point building it to be slow - speed is capacity as the fast you shift trains through a zone, the more trains can pass through it per an hour.
Not when you build for speed the way we did. Insane
I didn’t realise you were an expert in railway design as well
Or you could just apologise for entirely misreading my comment and replying to something I never said. Be a man
You said, about HS2, “we never needed it” when we do. We need the capacity it would give us. If anything we need more HS2.
The inability to apologise for a clear and obvious error is effeminate and childish, and a tiny bit cringeworthy
It’s a lesson I learned early and it’s served me well. If you fuck up - from small things to big things - just say sorry. It doesn’t diminish you, it earns respect
Politicians could benefit from this advice, as well
You’re just gaslighting me now. I literally quoted you. You said that we never needed HS2, we need more capacity but HS2 is for more capacity. I have nothing to apologise for and no error was made.
Capacity just requires another pair of tracks.
That's why the Lizzie Line can go all the way along the GWR main line to Reading out west, but out east it has to terminate at Shenfield (near Brentwood) because the GER is only two tracks beyond there (towards either Southend or Chelmsford).
As set out by others, speed is also capacity. More trains per hour.
If you want to be really pedantic consistent timetabling is also required.
Which was why HS2 was designed for London Manchester to have a 1 hour 10 journey time providing 20 minutes for any issues and turn around (dwell at platform time). Once you start approaching a 1 hour 20 journey time that turn around period because of timetabling becomes 40 minutes which means you suddenly need more platforms - and remember how expensive the Euston platform extension is.
Would Keir Starmer stand against Wes Streeting? Yesterday a No 10 insider said that is a card the PM could yet play. They said he would win, and that the soft left, waiting for Burnham, would back Starmer.
But soft left are clear that won't happen. "There is no way in hell that the soft left would back Keir," a well-placed soft left figure says.
But it’s a preferential voting system. The soft left will plump for Burnham and Rayner et al, but when they get to the bottom of their ballot, Streeting will be last and Starmer will be second last. As to what this might mean, we’ll have to wait for TSE’s lead to explain it to us.
Supporters of Andy Burnham are asking the cabinet to go to Keir Starmer and urge him not to stand in a leadership contest against Wes Streeting
The Burnham camp say they think cabinet ministers will tell Starmer he should instead set a timetable for a longer contest if Streeting does move
BUT friends of Starmer completely dismiss that. They say there is no chance he will listen to any such advice and insist he will stand in a contest now if Streeting has the numbers
Streeting’s allies are saying different things about whether he has 81 MPs and his chances of success in a leadership election
Some think this is his only shot and he’s right to go over the top. Others are less sure he can get to 81 and also worry the backlash against him could see him lose to Starmer or another candidate
If there is an expedited contest many on the soft-left expect Ed Miliband to stand to try to stop either Streeting or Starmer winning
Any immediate contest could become a free-for-all with ambitious novice Al Carns as well as other members of the cabinet deciding they fancy their chances
As of 2pm this afternoon, the Labour Party appears to be moving from paralysis toward chaos
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
The issue around HS2 was that it was sold as about getting to the 'North' a few minutes faster (which as you say isn't really needed) but was actually about capacity. And over specified on that basis.
Yes. Even if you must have more speed AIUI the engineers wanted us to have the fastest trains in the universe - out of pride - which is just bonkers in a country as compact as Britain
With all the money not wasted we could have built a cross rail from Liverpool they manc etc to Leeds, maybe even up to Newcastle. Fast (but not high speed) and very regular trains. Every 15 minutes. Really link these cities in a way not done before. A clean convenient shuttle across the north
That would have been transformational. Creating a new metropolitan area to rival london with all that this brings
And we’d still have £50bn left
HS2 isn’t that much more expensive for being designed for 350km/h instead of 300km/h.
What made HS2 ridiculously expensive was 1) burying more than half the line between London and Birmingham and 2) the ridiculous procurement rules demanded by the Treasury that made the contractors liable for any faults that developed over the following decades. Bonus 3) building anything in the UK is ridiculously expensive due to planning regulations out the wazoo, see PB discussions passim.
Consider the M6. Longest motorway in the UK at 230 miles. Current motorway building costs in the UK are pushing £100million / mile (ish). So the M6 would cost us about 23billion to build today. How much do you think it would cost if we decided to bury more than half the route in a massive cutting and a bunch of very long tunnels to appease local NIMBYs? Twice as much? Three times as much? More? Probably much, much more actually. Tunnelling is astonishingly expensive per mile compared to ordinary road building.
HS2’s speed was never the issue.
We should have just invented triple decker trains. Reckon I could do that in a lunch break
The most crazy thing in British politics at the moment is the way in which a seat is trying to be found for Andy Burnham to return to parliament. Such a plan will probably fail. Voters don't like being manipulated in that way.
Not really. It’s the crass system we have. Blame the system not Andy B!
Given the mahoosive list of things Leon and his prior incarnations have got wrong over so many years, the real question is why he’s settled on voting for Starmer for his renaming.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
The issue around HS2 was that it was sold as about getting to the 'North' a few minutes faster (which as you say isn't really needed) but was actually about capacity. And over specified on that basis.
Yes. Even if you must have more speed AIUI the engineers wanted us to have the fastest trains in the universe - out of pride - which is just bonkers in a country as compact as Britain
With all the money not wasted we could have built a cross rail from Liverpool they manc etc to Leeds, maybe even up to Newcastle. Fast (but not high speed) and very regular trains. Every 15 minutes. Really link these cities in a way not done before. A clean convenient shuttle across the north
That would have been transformational. Creating a new metropolitan area to rival london with all that this brings
And we’d still have £50bn left
HS2 isn’t that much more expensive for being designed for 350km/h instead of 300km/h.
What made HS2 ridiculously expensive was 1) burying more than half the line between London and Birmingham and 2) the ridiculous procurement rules demanded by the Treasury that made the contractors liable for any faults that developed over the following decades. Bonus 3) building anything in the UK is ridiculously expensive due to planning regulations out the wazoo, see PB discussions passim.
Consider the M6. Longest motorway in the UK at 230 miles. Current motorway building costs in the UK are pushing £100million / mile (ish). So the M6 would cost us about 23billion to build today. How much do you think it would cost if we decided to bury more than half the route in a massive cutting and a bunch of very long tunnels to appease local NIMBYs? Twice as much? Three times as much? More? Probably much, much more actually. Tunnelling is astonishingly expensive per mile compared to ordinary road building.
HS2’s speed was never the issue.
We should have just invented triple decker trains. Reckon I could do that in a lunch break
Sorted
And every bridge on the line would need to be replaced.
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
No point building it to be slow - speed is capacity as the fast you shift trains through a zone, the more trains can pass through it per an hour.
Not when you build for speed the way we did. Insane
I didn’t realise you were an expert in railway design as well
Or you could just apologise for entirely misreading my comment and replying to something I never said. Be a man
You said, about HS2, “we never needed it” when we do. We need the capacity it would give us. If anything we need more HS2.
The inability to apologise for a clear and obvious error is effeminate and childish, and a tiny bit cringeworthy
It’s a lesson I learned early and it’s served me well. If you fuck up - from small things to big things - just say sorry. It doesn’t diminish you, it earns respect
Politicians could benefit from this advice, as well
You’re just gaslighting me now. I literally quoted you. You said that we never needed HS2, we need more capacity but HS2 is for more capacity. I have nothing to apologise for and no error was made.
Capacity just requires another pair of tracks.
That's why the Lizzie Line can go all the way along the GWR main line to Reading out west, but out east it has to terminate at Shenfield (near Brentwood) because the GER is only two tracks beyond there (towards either Southend or Chelmsford).
As set out by others, speed is also capacity. More trains per hour.
That's why the GWR main line trains go straight through to Reading, maybe stopping at Slough along the way.
The added poignancy of HS2 is that by the time it actually comes into operation - 2038? 2098? -, it’s possible all the demand anticipated may largely have disappeared, as the roads fill with self driving cars and other vehicles. We might even have self driving helidrones - whizzing from town to town
Maybe I am being pessimistic but other day I got a letter from HS2. It began like this
“As we begin work on HS2, we expect to be tunnelling in your area…”
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
The issue around HS2 was that it was sold as about getting to the 'North' a few minutes faster (which as you say isn't really needed) but was actually about capacity. And over specified on that basis.
Yes. Even if you must have more speed AIUI the engineers wanted us to have the fastest trains in the universe - out of pride - which is just bonkers in a country as compact as Britain
With all the money not wasted we could have built a cross rail from Liverpool they manc etc to Leeds, maybe even up to Newcastle. Fast (but not high speed) and very regular trains. Every 15 minutes. Really link these cities in a way not done before. A clean convenient shuttle across the north
That would have been transformational. Creating a new metropolitan area to rival london with all that this brings
And we’d still have £50bn left
HS2 isn’t that much more expensive for being designed for 350km/h instead of 300km/h.
What made HS2 ridiculously expensive was 1) burying more than half the line between London and Birmingham and 2) the ridiculous procurement rules demanded by the Treasury that made the contractors liable for any faults that developed over the following decades. Bonus 3) building anything in the UK is ridiculously expensive due to planning regulations out the wazoo, see PB discussions passim.
Consider the M6. Longest motorway in the UK at 230 miles. Current motorway building costs in the UK are pushing £100million / mile (ish). So the M6 would cost us about 23billion to build today. How much do you think it would cost if we decided to bury more than half the route in a massive cutting and a bunch of very long tunnels to appease local NIMBYs? Twice as much? Three times as much? More? Probably much, much more actually. Tunnelling is astonishingly expensive per mile compared to ordinary road building.
HS2’s speed was never the issue.
We should have just invented triple decker trains. Reckon I could do that in a lunch break
I’ve just gone from london to the very north of England in about 20 minutes (or so it feels)
This is the tragedy of HS2. We never needed it. We don’t need high speed trains in the UK, we don’t have the distances that require it. Britain is relatively tiny. You can get anywhere in a few hours. That’s an ADVANTAGE
What we needed was more capacity and better trains with brilliant WiFi. That’s it
HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literally said this in the comment to which you are replying, you blind fucking muppet
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
No point building it to be slow - speed is capacity as the fast you shift trains through a zone, the more trains can pass through it per an hour.
Not when you build for speed the way we did. Insane
I didn’t realise you were an expert in railway design as well
Or you could just apologise for entirely misreading my comment and replying to something I never said. Be a man
You said, about HS2, “we never needed it” when we do. We need the capacity it would give us. If anything we need more HS2.
The inability to apologise for a clear and obvious error is effeminate and childish, and a tiny bit cringeworthy
It’s a lesson I learned early and it’s served me well. If you fuck up - from small things to big things - just say sorry. It doesn’t diminish you, it earns respect
Politicians could benefit from this advice, as well
You’re just gaslighting me now. I literally quoted you. You said that we never needed HS2, we need more capacity but HS2 is for more capacity. I have nothing to apologise for and no error was made.
Henry Zephman says the £5m is a "gift", so even though Farage should have registered a "donation" that was received 12 months before being elected to Parliament, Zephman suggests as a "gift" this is different.
I find it hard to find a reading of the Code of Conduct that doesn't conclude that Farage should have reported the donation, or at least contacted the office about it.
When is a donation a gift? Farage seems to think he is watertight which suggests the system is broken.
It was clearly a gift.
You know how people of means often make financial provision for loved ones so they are safe and secure for the rest of their lives?
Well that's obviously how Christopher Harborne feels about Nigel Farage.
Farage gets a hefty tax bill if Harborne expires within 7 years of the gift.
No it doesn't smell like dead and rotting fish at all.
Comments
“What we needed was more capacity”
Twat
Although I also favour a republic.
HS2 = ridiculously over-specced.
The short odds on Burnham will surely lengthen further - his only chance of next PM now is if Starmer prevails in the ballot and a path back into parliament is subsequently found for him, rather implausibly still as it would still need Starmer's blessing. The odds on Burnham should be well into double digits.
Rayner and Miliband's odds are longer because each is vying to be the left candidate. It's hard to see both Rayner and Miliband getting 81 supporters without the other standing down so I expect the one with the fewest initial supporters to withdraw. Whichever one of the two goes forward should then become favourite.
I do think there’s a market failure baked in there. Though there is a separate question of whether you’d want to fix it, because you then might open up some really silly policy choices.
Also, yes you’re borrowing someone else’s money, but when you are a nation state they are choosing to lend to you for reasons of suitability, (lack of) volatility, and liquidity. So if the pricing of the likes of gilts goes too high, you’re going to inevitably pass on a price premium to every other type of debt.
It's a great pleasure to be here with you all today.
You know, things are changing fast.
We live in a world of change.
The silicon chip is changing our lives.
Quality of life is becoming more and more important.
Environment, conservation, problems of pollution, the future of our children, and our children's children.
These are today's issues.
There is, quite rightly, increasing concern about my premiership.
I'm happy to reassure you, members of the Cabinet,.oh 'm so sorry.
It's yesterday's speech.
PM has full confidence in Streeting
Saying that he will support Andy Burnham's return to the Commons might be a good tactical move too.
But Cookie is right: separating your fast & slow trains onto separate tracks radically increases the capacity of your railway network for the reasons he states. We didn’t need a 300mph railway, but we did (and still do) need a new 200mph railway.
Sunak’s decision to cut HS2 off at the knees after we had built all the expensive bits was the most ludicrous piece of economic self-injury since ... well the last time the UK government did something stupid. Take your pick of those I guess.
EXCL: If Wes Streeting announces his run for leadership tomorrow, the soft left say they will not turn to Angela Rayner but stick with their Plan A of Andy Burnham
Tribune exec MPs are expected to push Labour's ruling body to allow for Burnham's inclusion – even though that means allowing a whole by-election before the race begins
Their hope: force the issue to go to full NEC rather than the small officers group, where Burnham might have a better chance – and I'm told Ellie Reeves was in favour of allowing that to happen last time
The sadly ironic thing about our current economic circumstances is that the Government should have printed great piles of £ during the post-2008 crash period when interest rates were on the floor & the markets were basically screaming at the Government to spend spend spend but the moment a Government gets into power that’s actually willing to do that, the economic circumstances change, interest rates rest to 5+% and the Government becomes fiscally constrained by inflationary pressures.
But that’s what the voters wanted (in the aggregate), so that’s what they got.
Potentially Ed M. and others will sit it out, allow Starmer to win and increase the soft left faction in cabinet.
And the arguments over that meant multiyear delays and more cost.
And now it reaches ... Birmingham.
You know how people of means often make financial provision for loved ones so they are safe and secure for the rest of their lives?
Well that's obviously how Christopher Harborne feels about Nigel Farage.
He appears stubborn enough to try and fight a contest, but I’m not convinced that line will hold once other cabinet figures come out and start exploring bids.
With all the money not wasted we could have built a cross rail from Liverpool they manc etc to Leeds, maybe even up to Newcastle. Fast (but not high speed) and very regular trains. Every 15 minutes. Really link these cities in a way not done before. A clean convenient shuttle across the north
That would have been transformational. Creating a new metropolitan area to rival london with all that this brings
And we’d still have £50bn left
It’s a lesson I learned early and it’s served me well. If you fuck up - from small things to big things - just say sorry. It doesn’t diminish you, it earns respect
Politicians could benefit from this advice, as well
I suspect he bought the trap from ACME and forgot to install the spring.
That's why the Lizzie Line can go all the way along the GWR main line to Reading out west, but out east it has to terminate at Shenfield (near Brentwood) because the GER is only two tracks beyond there (towards either Southend or Chelmsford).
”You’re just gaslighting me now. I literally quoted you. You said that we never needed HS2, we need more capacity but HS2 is for more capacity. I have nothing to apologise for and no error was made”
+++++++
Do you want me to go through this? Really? In my original comment I said this. Look. It’s up there. Go see. I said this, after saying speed was unimportant:
WHAT WE NEEDED WAS MORE CAPACITY
To which you replied
“HS2 was about capacity, not speed, so as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about”
I mean. It’s there. Black and white. What a ridiculous position to take. You got it wrong. You just can’t say Oops sorry
You’re a child
It’s one of the bits of Britain that feels oddly continental. More like France in scale
Would Keir Starmer stand against Wes Streeting? Yesterday a No 10 insider said that is a card the PM could yet play. They said he would win, and that the soft left, waiting for Burnham, would back Starmer.
But soft left are clear that won't happen. "There is no way in hell that the soft left would back Keir," a well-placed soft left figure says.
What made HS2 ridiculously expensive was 1) burying more than half the line between London and Birmingham and 2) the ridiculous procurement rules demanded by the Treasury that made the contractors liable for any faults that developed over the following decades. Bonus 3) building anything in the UK is ridiculously expensive due to planning regulations out the wazoo, see PB discussions passim.
Consider the M6. Longest motorway in the UK at 230 miles. Current motorway building costs in the UK are pushing £100million / mile (ish). So the M6 would cost us about 23billion to build today. How much do you think it would cost if we decided to bury more than half the route in a massive cutting and a bunch of very long tunnels to appease local NIMBYs? Twice as much? Three times as much? More? Probably much, much more actually. Tunnelling is astonishingly expensive per mile compared to ordinary road building.
HS2’s speed was never the issue.
?
The problem is that with HS2a cancelled, there's literally nowhere north of Birmingham that can berth 400m trains, which means currently the plan would send 200m trains to Manchester etc - a BIG reduction in current capacity.
They're now talking about varying the build at mahoosive contractual cost to build 260m sets. Which then won't fit in the new depot being built to maintain 200m sets. Although on paper they could service them at Birmingham Curzon Street station which is being built with 7 x 400m platforms and needs only one if they are only running to London.
It's an utter farce. Nobody seems interested in noticing the existing Pendolino sets will also be life expired by then so why not build a new fleet of trains to replace them which can tilt off HS2 and do 200mph on it?
His other route (Starmer stands vs Streeting, beats him due to votes lent by Burnhamites, allowing Burnham to come in and oust Starmer on a more relaxed timetable) is IMO highly improbable. As is the notion of Rayner or Miliband standing and winning as a 'soft left placeholder PM' with a view to standing down in favour of Burnham if and when he makes it back. That is too clever clever, disrespects the office of PM, and would really piss off the public (inc me in this case).
Which was why HS2 was designed for London Manchester to have a 1 hour 10 journey time providing 20 minutes for any issues and turn around (dwell at platform time). Once you start approaching a 1 hour 20 journey time that turn around period because of timetabling becomes 40 minutes which means you suddenly need more platforms - and remember how expensive the Euston platform extension is.
Supporters of Andy Burnham are asking the cabinet to go to Keir Starmer and urge him not to stand in a leadership contest against Wes Streeting
The Burnham camp say they think cabinet ministers will tell Starmer he should instead set a timetable for a longer contest if Streeting does move
BUT friends of Starmer completely dismiss that. They say there is no chance he will listen to any such advice and insist he will stand in a contest now if Streeting has the numbers
Streeting’s allies are saying different things about whether he has 81 MPs and his chances of success in a leadership election
Some think this is his only shot and he’s right to go over the top. Others are less sure he can get to 81 and also worry the backlash against him could see him lose to Starmer or another candidate
If there is an expedited contest many on the soft-left expect Ed Miliband to stand to try to stop either Streeting or Starmer winning
Any immediate contest could become a free-for-all with ambitious novice Al Carns as well as other members of the cabinet deciding they fancy their chances
As of 2pm this afternoon, the Labour Party appears to be moving from paralysis toward chaos
Sorted
Maybe I am being pessimistic but other day I got a letter from HS2. It began like this
“As we begin work on HS2, we expect to be tunnelling in your area…”
No it doesn't smell like dead and rotting fish at all.