politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Final vote tally from last month’s locals shows UKIP in sec
Comments
-
Meanwhile the Scottish independence campaign has had a new celebrity endorsement:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-230880390 -
I disagree. The govt should be more open about what they cannot control. And should have contingency plans for various outcomes.david_kendrick1 said:The govt should influence what they can, and not worry about what they cannot control.
If they can't control something (EU immigration in this case and for example, but there are many others) then they should say so explicitly. If it's an EU related matter then we can decide at the ballot box what to do about it. If it's our ever changing climate then we can pray to whatever gods we believe in for a good harvest rather than building pointless windmills in order to look busy.
But politicians build up false hopes with promises on immigration etc and pay the price in loss of trust when they fail to deliver. Much better to openly admit powerlessness and get the backup plan ready.
0 -
Moderator.tim said:
Peter Kellners Date NightsAveryLP said:
"it's me, Cathy, I've come home"
Dave's Date Nights
" lock and load and have one up the spout"
"As a Father" Dave's subliminal messaging seems to be running high at the moment.
Lock and load
When a female intentionally gets pregnant by her boyfriend, or a guy she's interested in to make sure that the guy is a part of her life forever, usually via marriage.
Up the Spout
Pregnant.
My two and four-year-old nephews have just read tim's post on their iPhones.
Please would you apply the PB porn filter as per official opposition policy.
0 -
Twitter
Patrick Hennessy @PatJHennessy 1h
How popular is Osborne's welfare crackdown? Find out in SunTel/@ICMResearch Wisdom Index poll later
George Pascoe-Watson @GPW_Portland 7m
@PatJHennessy very?
Patrick Hennessy @PatJHennessy 5m
@GPW_Portland Not long until you find out. But you're not a million miles away!0 -
fitalass said:
"We do not want see these extra houses in our backyard. And we don't want see these new houses in anybody else's backyard either. "
@DavidKendrick I just don't get that attitude. I live on the outskirts of a lovely wee village, and we have just had our utilities here improved in preparation for a new housing development. To me this is good news, and its going to help support our village school and local shops etc which is essential to the fabric of the village and benefits everyone.
Edit - Not suggesting whole sale building anywhere without rules here. But we do have to compromise here, and also realise that changes to our villages, towns and cities is inevitable as more housing is going to be needed for the future. I just don't see how turning your face away to any changes as being a viable option?
We'll always need more housing---that is not the issue. The problem is one of scale. 18000 more homes in the M11 corridor, over the next 15 years? No thanks.
That is too many, too quickly. Cambridge has increased in population more in the last 12 years than in the previous 100 years. There is no prospect of any relief from these increases in the near future.
About the only factor that the govt can control is nett immigration. The last socialist govt made no effort to control it between 1997 and 2010. The current coalition govt talks a good game, but while the UK remains in the EU, it can only tinker at the edges.
0 -
Sometimes when you scrape a barrel there's only air left.antifrank said:Meanwhile the Scottish independence campaign has had a new celebrity endorsement: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23088039
Utter coincidence that whoever-this-is has a book coming out. Cheap publicity gimmick? Surely not.
0 -
Your what with their what? You cannot be serious (It being Wimbledon fortnight!)AveryLP said:
Moderator.tim said:
Peter Kellners Date NightsAveryLP said:
"it's me, Cathy, I've come home"
Dave's Date Nights
" lock and load and have one up the spout"
"As a Father" Dave's subliminal messaging seems to be running high at the moment.
Lock and load
When a female intentionally gets pregnant by her boyfriend, or a guy she's interested in to make sure that the guy is a part of her life forever, usually via marriage.
Up the Spout
Pregnant.
My two and four-year-old nephews have just read tim's post on their iPhones.
Please would you apply the PB porn filter as per official opposition policy.
0 -
Pathetic poll ramping. Hennessy should either post the numbers or STFU.fitalass said:Twitter
Patrick Hennessy @PatJHennessy 1h
How popular is Osborne's welfare crackdown? Find out in SunTel/@ICMResearch Wisdom Index poll later
George Pascoe-Watson @GPW_Portland 7m
@PatJHennessy very?
Patrick Hennessy @PatJHennessy 5m
@GPW_Portland Not long until you find out. But you're not a million miles away!
0 -
The houses have to go somewhere. The reality is that the countryside has to take more of its fair share - we in London have absorbed large population increases in recent times while you in the Greater South East bridle at what would account for a fraction of the stock of a single London borough. It's the same everywhere in the sticks - everyone seems to think their area is special, hence no homes get built.david_kendrick1 said:fitalass said:"We do not want see these extra houses in our backyard. And we don't want see these new houses in anybody else's backyard either. "
@DavidKendrick I just don't get that attitude. I live on the outskirts of a lovely wee village, and we have just had our utilities here improved in preparation for a new housing development. To me this is good news, and its going to help support our village school and local shops etc which is essential to the fabric of the village and benefits everyone.
Edit - Not suggesting whole sale building anywhere without rules here. But we do have to compromise here, and also realise that changes to our villages, towns and cities is inevitable as more housing is going to be needed for the future. I just don't see how turning your face away to any changes as being a viable option?
We'll always need more housing---that is not the issue. The problem is one of scale. 18000 more homes in the M11 corridor, over the next 15 years? No thanks.
That is too many, too quickly. Cambridge has increased in population more in the last 12 years than in the previous 100 years. There is no prospect of any relief from these increases in the near future.
About the only factor that the govt can control is nett immigration. The last socialist govt made no effort to control it between 1997 and 2010. The current coalition govt talks a good game, but while the UK remains in the EU, it can only tinker at the edges.
0 -
We can spend at that level, indefinitely, and the World won't come to an end. But, we probably won't grow very much at that level.HYUFD said:another richard - based on that table, the public spending/GDP ratio will have fallen by 5% in 2015, and only a 2% cut further would take it below the level of 2005/06 and indeed most of the Thatcher years. Why do we need to cut further than that? Most OECD nations spend about 40-50% of GDP, Germany, Italy, Spain, New Zealand etc and even Brazil spends at that rate. While the likes of France clearly need to cut further as they now still spend more than 50% of GDP even the US spends around 38-39% of GDP at present, cuts significantly below 40% seem to me to be ideological rather than practical necessity!
0 -
*sigh* Is it really 21 years since McEnroe's last Wimbledon as a full player? Glad I got to see him play once (in Paris).OldKingCole said:You cannot be serious (It being Wimbledon fortnight!)
0 -
Nor does being a PB tory have to entail a complete denial of the facts. Yet that is what you do best. Your credibility on such matters is scarcely greater than your powers of spin for Lansley or Osbrowne, Seth.AveryLP said:
Becoming a Scotch Nationalist doesn't mean you have to become a victim, Neil.Neil said:Keep running up that hill, Avery
(I still havent forgiven you for your cruel, cruel attack on me during the week!)
People tend to look at the facts more objectively when they are allowed to be laid out in full for all to see. It's clear how distressing that is for you and your fellow PB tories right now. Sadly, I don't think it's about to stop. Bet get used to it, Seth. Oops! I meant "best" of course. A slip of the keyboard unfortunately. A careless habit but one I'm sure you will easily forgive.
0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/10150160/Mobile-phone-users-could-incur-roaming-charges-if-Scotland-gains-independence.html
Ugh, I'm with the Nats on this one.. the No side should be running a far more positive campaign, rather than banging on about how horrible it would be if Yes won.0 -
Presumably it won't just be mobile users. What about landlines? When it comes to spectrum allocation, will there be separate bids for Scotland and RUK?RobD said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/10150160/Mobile-phone-users-could-incur-roaming-charges-if-Scotland-gains-independence.html
Ugh, I'm with the Nats on this one.. the No side should be running a far more positive campaign, rather than banging on about how horrible it would be if Yes won.0 -
Well, Britain did have a base on the Croatian island of Vis (also known as Lissa) during the Napoleonic Wars, so historically that's OKantifrank said:\
And of course Croatia joins the EU on Monday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lissa_(1811)0 -
And how prosperous has Cambridge become over the last twelve years?david_kendrick1 said:fitalass said:"We do not want see these extra houses in our backyard. And we don't want see these new houses in anybody else's backyard either. "
@DavidKendrick I just don't get that attitude. I live on the outskirts of a lovely wee village, and we have just had our utilities here improved in preparation for a new housing development. To me this is good news, and its going to help support our village school and local shops etc which is essential to the fabric of the village and benefits everyone.
Edit - Not suggesting whole sale building anywhere without rules here. But we do have to compromise here, and also realise that changes to our villages, towns and cities is inevitable as more housing is going to be needed for the future. I just don't see how turning your face away to any changes as being a viable option?
We'll always need more housing---that is not the issue. The problem is one of scale. 18000 more homes in the M11 corridor, over the next 15 years? No thanks.
That is too many, too quickly. Cambridge has increased in population more in the last 12 years than in the previous 100 years. There is no prospect of any relief from these increases in the near future.
About the only factor that the govt can control is nett immigration. The last socialist govt made no effort to control it between 1997 and 2010. The current coalition govt talks a good game, but while the UK remains in the EU, it can only tinker at the edges.
You should be thankful for the new housing, and the fact it has enabled people like myself and Mrs J to live in the area. We had (as usual) a choice of companies to move to, and we picked one near Cambridge as a) we knew the area well, and b) we had a good chance of buying a house here at a semi-affordable price.
Without the option to buy a house, we would not have moved here. Multiply that a few times and you have companies not being able to get the highly-trained staff, and therefore moving to more enlightened areas.
Restrict housing, and Cambridge will wither. It's a shame, but talking to engineers, from graduate to CTO's, and they say the same.
Housing demand in an area is an indicator of a healthy economy.0 -
Sean F - We will grow enough, in any case we will never grow as fast as the BRICs because clearly they are starting further behind us so have more room to grow. The problem is, if you want to cut public spending significantly below 40% you need to ask what further soldiers, schools, libraries, hospitals, police etc you will axe to pay for it?0
-
Or the government could do something about illegal immigration and working. If you read the details of the various grooming trials you'll have read lots of incidents where for example girls were taken to flats above fast food places where they had half a bottle of whiskey poured down their neck and put in a room with twelve men. Those cases were an employer providing a treat to their illegal workers.Bobajob said:
The houses have to go somewhere. The reality is that the countryside has to take more of its fair share - we in London have absorbed large population increases in recent times while you in the Greater South East bridle at what would account for a fraction of the stock of a single London borough. It's the same everywhere in the sticks - everyone seems to think their area is special, hence no homes get built.david_kendrick1 said:fitalass said:"We do not want see these extra houses in our backyard. And we don't want see these new houses in anybody else's backyard either. "
@DavidKendrick I just don't get that attitude. I live on the outskirts of a lovely wee village, and we have just had our utilities here improved in preparation for a new housing development. To me this is good news, and its going to help support our village school and local shops etc which is essential to the fabric of the village and benefits everyone.
Edit - Not suggesting whole sale building anywhere without rules here. But we do have to compromise here, and also realise that changes to our villages, towns and cities is inevitable as more housing is going to be needed for the future. I just don't see how turning your face away to any changes as being a viable option?
We'll always need more housing---that is not the issue. The problem is one of scale. 18000 more homes in the M11 corridor, over the next 15 years? No thanks.
That is too many, too quickly. Cambridge has increased in population more in the last 12 years than in the previous 100 years. There is no prospect of any relief from these increases in the near future.
About the only factor that the govt can control is nett immigration. The last socialist govt made no effort to control it between 1997 and 2010. The current coalition govt talks a good game, but while the UK remains in the EU, it can only tinker at the edges.
There are whole chunks of the economy run like that now (at least in London) where the employers have houses full of illegals working their shops, restaurants, petrol stations, fast-food, taxis etc. Dealing with illegal immigration would mean
- more housing
- less unemployment (especially youth as they are mostly entry level jobs)
- more tax
- less welfare fraud
- less demand for forced child prostitution0 -
Aren't roaming charges due to be done away with under EU rules at some point in the not too distant future? Agree that it's silly scaremongeringRobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/10150160/Mobile-phone-users-could-incur-roaming-charges-if-Scotland-gains-independence.html
Ugh, I'm with the Nats on this one.. the No side should be running a far more positive campaign, rather than banging on about how horrible it would be if Yes won.0 -
A much more important cause of the demand for housing is the breakup of the traditional family structure and people getting married later. Nowadays large number of teenagers move away from home to go to uni and end up renting in the private sector, sharing accommodation. Then they get a job, still away from home, and rent a flat. Later, in their late-20's, they rent a larger place. Eventually in their thirties they buy.MrJones said:
Or the government could do something about illegal immigration and working. If you read the details of the various grooming trials you'll have read lots of incidents where for example girls were taken to flats above fast food places where they had half a bottle of whiskey poured down their neck and put in a room with twelve men. Those cases were an employer providing a treat to their illegal workers.Bobajob said:
The houses have to go somewhere. The reality is that the countryside has to take more of its fair share - we in London have absorbed large population increases in recent times while you in the Greater South East bridle at what would account for a fraction of the stock of a single London borough. It's the same everywhere in the sticks - everyone seems to think their area is special, hence no homes get built.david_kendrick1 said:fitalass said:"We do not want see these extra houses in our backyard. And we don't want see these new houses in anybody else's backyard either. "
@DavidKendrick I just don't get that attitude. I live on the outskirts of a lovely wee village, and we have just had our utilities here improved in preparation for a new housing development. To me this is good news, and its going to help support our village school and local shops etc which is essential to the fabric of the village and benefits everyone.
Edit - Not suggesting whole sale building anywhere without rules here. But we do have to compromise here, and also realise that changes to our villages, towns and cities is inevitable as more housing is going to be needed for the future. I just don't see how turning your face away to any changes as being a viable option?
We'll always need more housing---that is not the issue. The problem is one of scale. 18000 more homes in the M11 corridor, over the next 15 years? No thanks.
That is too many, too quickly. Cambridge has increased in population more in the last 12 years than in the previous 100 years. There is no prospect of any relief from these increases in the near future.
About the only factor that the govt can control is nett immigration. The last socialist govt made no effort to control it between 1997 and 2010. The current coalition govt talks a good game, but while the UK remains in the EU, it can only tinker at the edges.
There are whole chunks of the economy run like that now (at least in London) where the employers have houses full of illegals working their shops, restaurants, petrol stations, fast-food, taxis etc. Dealing with illegal immigration would mean
- more housing
- less unemployment (especially youth as they are mostly entry level jobs)
- more tax
- less welfare fraud
- less demand for forced child prostitution
Two friends of ours got married last year, both in their mid-thirties. Both had owned their own houses for around ten years, and had lived alone in them.
We live in a four-bedroom house (well, three bedroom and a microscopic room that is currently cluttered with old electronics), for two people. That would have been virtually unheard of fifty years ago.
It's a good job the spare room subsidy does not apply to houseowners!0 -
The poll article isn't up, but
Labour's other big problem is illustrated by the Opinium opinion poll that we publish today. The party's 10-point headline lead, which is in line with most other recent polls, is not the most important figure.
The anguish number for Labour is that a near-majority, 46% of respondents, continue to blame Britain's economic situation on the last government, as opposed to only 29% who place culpability on the coalition.
A majority don't trust either party with the economy. Of those choosing a team, more say they would prefer to have David Cameron and George Osborne in charge of the economy than Ed Miliband and Ed Balls.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/29/labour-needs-to-look-credible0 -
On topic, thanks to AndyJS for collating all this info0
-
More important to who?JosiasJessop said:
A much more important cause of the demand for housing is the breakup of the traditional family structure and people getting married later. Nowadays large number of teenagers move away from home to go to uni and end up renting in the private sector, sharing accommodation. Then they get a job, still away from home, and rent a flat. Later, in their late-20's, they rent a larger place. Eventually in their thirties they buy.MrJones said:
Or the government could do something about illegal immigration and working. If you read the details of the various grooming trials you'll have read lots of incidents where for example girls were taken to flats above fast food places where they had half a bottle of whiskey poured down their neck and put in a room with twelve men. Those cases were an employer providing a treat to their illegal workers.Bobajob said:
The houses have to go somewhere. The reality is that the countryside has to take more of its fair share - we in London have absorbed large population increases in recent times while you in the Greater South East bridle at what would account for a fraction of the stock of a single London borough. It's the same everywhere in the sticks - everyone seems to think their area is special, hence no homes get built.david_kendrick1 said:fitalass said:"We do not want see these extra houses in our backyard. And we don't want see these new houses in anybody else's backyard either. "
@DavidKendrick I just don't get that attitude. I live on the outskirts of a lovely wee village, and we have just had our utilities here improved in preparation for a new housing development. To me this is good news, and its going to help support our village school and local shops etc which is essential to the fabric of the village and benefits everyone.
Edit - Not suggesting whole sale building anywhere without rules here. But we do have to compromise here, and also realise that changes to our villages, towns and cities is inevitable as more housing is going to be needed for the future. I just don't see how turning your face away to any changes as being a viable option?
We'll always need more housing---that is not the issue. The problem is one of scale. 18000 more homes in the M11 corridor, over the next 15 years? No thanks.
That is too many, too quickly. Cambridge has increased in population more in the last 12 years than in the previous 100 years. There is no prospect of any relief from these increases in the near future.
About the only factor that the govt can control is nett immigration. The last socialist govt made no effort to control it between 1997 and 2010. The current coalition govt talks a good game, but while the UK remains in the EU, it can only tinker at the edges.
There are whole chunks of the economy run like that now (at least in London) where the employers have houses full of illegals working their shops, restaurants, petrol stations, fast-food, taxis etc. Dealing with illegal immigration would mean
- more housing
- less unemployment (especially youth as they are mostly entry level jobs)
- more tax
- less welfare fraud
- less demand for forced child prostitution
Two friends of ours got married last year, both in their mid-thirties. Both had owned their own houses for around ten years, and had lived alone in them.
We live in a four-bedroom house (well, three bedroom and a microscopic room that is currently cluttered with old electronics), for two people. That would have been virtually unheard of fifty years ago.
It's a good job the spare room subsidy does not apply to houseowners!
0 -
Good evening, everyone.
Di Resta has been disqualified because his car was underweight. He will start the race, but last.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23113828
Whilst he can be overly quick to blame the team on occasions this would seem to be a real case of them making a schoolboy error that's relegated him from 5th to probably starting from the pit lane (extra ballast to make up the weight counts as contravening parc ferme, necessitating a pit lane start).
In other F1 news, McLaren have essentially proclaimed that their 2013 is a dead end:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23114886
They're right to shift focus to 2014, though I feel a bit sorry for Perez. Still, this way he'll get to learn about the team without instant pressure to win and score regular podiums.0 -
Looks a corker of a race tomorrow, I've backed both Mercedes drivers to win.Morris_Dancer said:Good evening, everyone.
Di Resta has been disqualified because his car was underweight. He will start the race, but last.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23113828
Whilst he can be overly quick to blame the team on occasions this would seem to be a real case of them making a schoolboy error that's relegated him from 5th to probably starting from the pit lane (extra ballast to make up the weight counts as contravening parc ferme, necessitating a pit lane start).
In other F1 news, McLaren have essentially proclaimed that their 2013 is a dead end:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23114886
They're right to shift focus to 2014, though I feel a bit sorry for Perez. Still, this way he'll get to learn about the team without instant pressure to win and score regular podiums.
So I fully expect they take each other out on the first corner.0 -
Mr. Eagles, you're not the only one that's made that bet.
It all depends on how much progress they've made on tyre management. It'll be hotter, which won't help, but their high fuel runs were not too bad and the harder compounds will help as well.0 -
Have you seen this market, on Webber's replacement?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, you're not the only one that's made that bet.
It all depends on how much progress they've made on tyre management. It'll be hotter, which won't help, but their high fuel runs were not too bad and the harder compounds will help as well.
Thoughts.
http://www.oddschecker.com/motorsport/season-specials/red-bull-specials/mark-webbers-replacement-at-red-bull0 -
HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report0 -
Morning, Pork.Mick_Pork said:
Nor does being a PB tory have to entail a complete denial of the facts. Yet that is what you do best. Your credibility on such matters is scarcely greater than your powers of spin for Lansley or Osbrowne, Seth.AveryLP said:
Becoming a Scotch Nationalist doesn't mean you have to become a victim, Neil.Neil said:Keep running up that hill, Avery
(I still havent forgiven you for your cruel, cruel attack on me during the week!)
People tend to look at the facts more objectively when they are allowed to be laid out in full for all to see. It's clear how distressing that is for you and your fellow PB tories right now. Sadly, I don't think it's about to stop. Bet get used to it, Seth. Oops! I meant "best" of course. A slip of the keyboard unfortunately. A careless habit but one I'm sure you will easily forgive.
Bit of a pig's breakfast that post.
Shall I wait for you to have your first cup of strong coffee?
0 -
Josias Jossop - The frontpage of the Telegraph today was headlined 'the end of the Thatcher property revolution'. Apparently only 40% of 25 to 34 year olds are home owners, compared with 58% in 200, with the majority now renting. Overall, the percentage of homeowners has fallen from 69% in 2001 to 64% now, the first fall in nearly a century0
-
No, Mr. Eagles.
I'd be more interested in backing Hulkenberg than any on that list. Of those listed, I'd probably look to Di Resta. Utter guesswork, though.0 -
I wonder if backing the Toro Rosso guys maybe the way to go.Morris_Dancer said:No, Mr. Eagles.
I'd be more interested in backing Hulkenberg than any on that list. Of those listed, I'd probably look to Di Resta. Utter guesswork, though.0 -
Having the Welsh coach, coach the Lions and picking so many Welshmen, the inevitable happened today.
But this was a wonderful bit of Rugby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0a1eScIgl00 -
Mr. Eagles, Vergne and Ricciardo are decent drivers but personally I'm far more impressed with Hulkenberg and Di Resta (perhaps Bianchi also).0
-
Red Bull should give it to Look-How-Bad-You-Are Luca BadoerMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, Vergne and Ricciardo are decent drivers but personally I'm far more impressed with Hulkenberg and Di Resta (perhaps Bianchi also).
0 -
If you look at my post, you see I mention renting as well. All those but-to-rent houses are bought for a reason - most people make money (or at least break even) on them.HYUFD said:Josias Jossop - The frontpage of the Telegraph today was headlined 'the end of the Thatcher property revolution'. Apparently only 40% of 25 to 34 year olds are home owners, compared with 58% in 200, with the majority now renting. Overall, the percentage of homeowners has fallen from 69% in 2001 to 64% now, the first fall in nearly a century
Some of the problem has been caused by smaller number of people in each household, therefore more properties required to house the same population.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/population-estimates-by-five-year-age-bands--and-household-estimates--for-local-authorities-in-the-united-kingdom/stb-population-and-household-estimates-for-the-united-kingdom-march-2011.html
Between 2001 and 2011, there was a slight fall of people per household from 2.4 to 2.3. Around 29% of households comprised one person.
If you really wanted to rectify the housing market and free up housing stock, then you would tackle the buy-to-let and second homes issues. Sadly these are politically unacceptable, and so the madness continues.0 -
Using the company’s “Wisdom Index” method, which asks voters to predict the result of the next election rather than which party they would back, Labour is on 34 per cent, up two points on last month. The Tories are unchanged on 29 per cent, with the Liberal Democrats down one point on 15 per cent. The UK Independence Party is down to 13, adding to evidence that its recent surge is fading.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/10150555/Voters-back-George-Osbornes-welfare-crackdown-finds-poll.html0 -
ICM Wisdom index changes from last time
Labour 34 (+2)
Con 29 (nc)
LD 15 (-1)
UKIP 13 (-2)0 -
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report0 -
Indeed.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
We should spend that money on faster trains between Sheffield and Manchester.0 -
Poor old Seth. As confused about the time as you are about everything else.AveryLP said:
Morning, Pork.Mick_Pork said:
Nor does being a PB tory have to entail a complete denial of the facts. Yet that is what you do best. Your credibility on such matters is scarcely greater than your powers of spin for Lansley or Osbrowne, Seth.AveryLP said:
Becoming a Scotch Nationalist doesn't mean you have to become a victim, Neil.Neil said:Keep running up that hill, Avery
(I still havent forgiven you for your cruel, cruel attack on me during the week!)
People tend to look at the facts more objectively when they are allowed to be laid out in full for all to see. It's clear how distressing that is for you and your fellow PB tories right now. Sadly, I don't think it's about to stop. Bet get used to it, Seth. Oops! I meant "best" of course. A slip of the keyboard unfortunately. A careless habit but one I'm sure you will easily forgive.
Bit of a pig's breakfast that post.
Shall I wait for you to have your first cup of strong coffee?
You seriously don't get it? Not to worry, you will.
0 -
The thing is, when we were much poorer than now, we somehow survived with government spending of well under 40% of GDP. As do, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, with no apparent ill effects.HYUFD said:Sean F - We will grow enough, in any case we will never grow as fast as the BRICs because clearly they are starting further behind us so have more room to grow. The problem is, if you want to cut public spending significantly below 40% you need to ask what further soldiers, schools, libraries, hospitals, police etc you will axe to pay for it?
As Matthew Parris says today, chopping departmental expenditure is more akin to pup suction than cutting. To the bone.
0 -
As you know, I utterly disagree. What is your verdict on Crossrail? Is that an expensive white elephant as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report0 -
Actually, Rawnsley is precisely wrong. The most important figure is what, having taken the other factors mentioned into account, people currently intend to vote. It's possible that if nobody thought Labour was to blame for the economic situation or if everyone regarded the Eds as new Messiahs, then Labour would have a 20- or 30-point lead. But 10 will do.TheScreamingEagles said:The poll article isn't up, but
Labour's other big problem is illustrated by the Opinium opinion poll that we publish today. The party's 10-point headline lead, which is in line with most other recent polls, is not the most important figure.
The anguish number for Labour is that a near-majority, 46% of respondents, continue to blame Britain's economic situation on the last government, as opposed to only 29% who place culpability on the coalition.
A majority don't trust either party with the economy. Of those choosing a team, more say they would prefer to have David Cameron and George Osborne in charge of the economy than Ed Miliband and Ed Balls.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/29/labour-needs-to-look-credible0 -
And how prosperous has Cambridge become over the last twelve years?JosiasJessop said:
You should be thankful for the new housing, and the fact it has enabled people like myself and Mrs J to live in the area. We had (as usual) a choice of companies to move to, and we picked one near Cambridge as a) we knew the area well, and b) we had a good chance of buying a house here at a semi-affordable price.
Without the option to buy a house, we would not have moved here. Multiply that a few times and you have companies not being able to get the highly-trained staff, and therefore moving to more enlightened areas.
Restrict housing, and Cambridge will wither. It's a shame, but talking to engineers, from graduate to CTO's, and they say the same.
Housing demand in an area is an indicator of a healthy economy.
Nobody is trying to argue that housing is not a more 'efficient' use of land than agriculture. Agricultural land is worth £7000/acre (and only that much because of its IHT benefits). Housing development land around Cambridge is around £1M/acre. Even allowing for distortions because of the planning rules, the truth is that, purely from an economic POV, building houses is more productive, and leads to more economic growth, than open fields.
But economic growth is not the only consideration.
If it were, the Green Belt, which is a deliberate brake on growth, would not have lasted so long.
0 -
No because that will be used by commuters and is unlikely to have premium fares (as with the current HS1 out to Kent).JosiasJessop said:
As you know, I utterly disagree. What is your verdict on Crossrail? Is that an expensive white elephant as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report0 -
Intriguingly, Virgin have a poster campaign here in London on the Tube showing their trains can do London to Manc in 2hrs 8 mins if I recall correctly.TheScreamingEagles said:
Indeed.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
We should spend that money on faster trains between Sheffield and Manchester.
0 -
I think you're missing the point: indeed, you've gone off on a tangent. I was not talking about the direct economic benefits of new housing being built (e.g. people being employed in construction); I was talking about the fact that housing *enables* people to move to an area of high demand.david_kendrick1 said:
Nobody is trying to argue that housing is not a more 'efficient' use of land than agriculture. Agricultural land is worth £7000/acre (and only that much because of its IHT benefits). Housing development land around Cambridge is around £1M/acre. Even allowing for distortions because of the planning rules, the truth is that, purely from an economic POV, building houses is more productive, and leads to more economic growth, than open fields.JosiasJessop said:
And how prosperous has Cambridge become over the last twelve years?
You should be thankful for the new housing, and the fact it has enabled people like myself and Mrs J to live in the area. We had (as usual) a choice of companies to move to, and we picked one near Cambridge as a) we knew the area well, and b) we had a good chance of buying a house here at a semi-affordable price.
Without the option to buy a house, we would not have moved here. Multiply that a few times and you have companies not being able to get the highly-trained staff, and therefore moving to more enlightened areas.
Restrict housing, and Cambridge will wither. It's a shame, but talking to engineers, from graduate to CTO's, and they say the same.
Housing demand in an area is an indicator of a healthy economy.
But economic growth is not the only consideration.
If it were, the Green Belt, which is a deliberate brake on growth, would not have lasted so long.
Indeed, a lack of housing will inhibit wider economic growth in an area of high demand.
Do you think ARM would remain in Cambridge if the staff could not get the homes they needed, and therefore ARM could not get the staff? How about any of the other high-tech companies, and indeed the low-tech?0 -
I've caught those trains many many times.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Intriguingly, Virgin have a poster campaign here in London on the Tube showing their trains can do London to Manc in 2hrs 8 mins if I recall correctly.TheScreamingEagles said:
Indeed.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
We should spend that money on faster trains between Sheffield and Manchester.
They are my favourite train company.0 -
As an experienced politician, you should know that mid-term ratings aren't how things turn out on election day.NickPalmer said:
Actually, Rawnsley is precisely wrong. The most important figure is what, having taken the other factors mentioned into account, people currently intend to vote. It's possible that if nobody thought Labour was to blame for the economic situation or if everyone regarded the Eds as new Messiahs, then Labour would have a 20- or 30-point lead. But 10 will do.TheScreamingEagles said:The poll article isn't up, but
Labour's other big problem is illustrated by the Opinium opinion poll that we publish today. The party's 10-point headline lead, which is in line with most other recent polls, is not the most important figure.
The anguish number for Labour is that a near-majority, 46% of respondents, continue to blame Britain's economic situation on the last government, as opposed to only 29% who place culpability on the coalition.
A majority don't trust either party with the economy. Of those choosing a team, more say they would prefer to have David Cameron and George Osborne in charge of the economy than Ed Miliband and Ed Balls.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/29/labour-needs-to-look-credible0 -
As I've pointed out in the past, the premium fares on HS2 are for a faster journey. Indeed, a massively faster journey if you travel from the north and don't have to cross London to reach Victoria.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No because that will be used by commuters and is unlikely to have premium fares (as with the current HS1 out to Kent).JosiasJessop said:
As you know, I utterly disagree. What is your verdict on Crossrail? Is that an expensive white elephant as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
As for the fares on Crossrail: Londoners are paying for it already, and squealing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8529717.stm
IMHO Crossrail only makes sense in conjunction with Boris Island and a development of the Thames corridor.0 -
SeanF - 'Survived' being the operative word, that is not the same as having well funded public services which we seek in the 21st century. South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore do have high gdps per capita, but they do not invest in core services to the extent the average OECD nation does (I would also assume they have a greater degree of philanthropy?) and clearly if you are poor or on a low income and live there that will impact upon the quality of service you receive. I do agree we could borrow from some of their ideas, ie more insurance based healthcare funding, unemployment insurance etc, but also they have more dutiful societies with closer-knit family units who do not turn to crime and have books in their homes etc which reduces the need for high spending on law and order, libraries in low income areas etc. If you want to move there, or the UAE then be free to do so, but we should not seek to copy them entirely, if you want a society where the state spends even more than here move to France, Cuba or Sweden, but 40-50% of GDP spending is fine by me!0
-
I remember a Labour councillor caused quite a stir when he suggested Princess Diana's Fountain be in the form of a "Giant Spurting Phallus" in Private Eye.SeanT said:Had the BEST day with my daughter, plus friends, plus family. Sunny sunny sunny. Princess Diana's fountain. Laughter and wine. School fair. Swimming and paddling. Bought a teddy called "massive big teddy".
Who gives a F about politics. No one cares. Massive big teddy. The sun is shining.0 -
TSE - does that mean 15% think the Libs will win or that 15% is the mean score forecast for the Libs?TheScreamingEagles said:Using the company’s “Wisdom Index” method, which asks voters to predict the result of the next election rather than which party they would back, Labour is on 34 per cent, up two points on last month. The Tories are unchanged on 29 per cent, with the Liberal Democrats down one point on 15 per cent. The UK Independence Party is down to 13, adding to evidence that its recent surge is fading.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/10150555/Voters-back-George-Osbornes-welfare-crackdown-finds-poll.html
0 -
Services ultimately just translate into people employed directly or indirectly to deliver those services. The obvious answer is to cut salaries, not services, although that policy would be incompatible with our inflationary monetary policy.HYUFD said:Sean F - We will grow enough, in any case we will never grow as fast as the BRICs because clearly they are starting further behind us so have more room to grow. The problem is, if you want to cut public spending significantly below 40% you need to ask what further soldiers, schools, libraries, hospitals, police etc you will axe to pay for it?
0 -
JosiasJossop - Agree on both your final points, I think the LDs were looing at measures on them but nothing seemed to really happen!0
-
It means that people expect the Lib Dems to poll 15% at the next General ElectionBobajob said:
TSE - does that mean 15% think the Libs will win or that 15% is the mean score forecast for the Libs?TheScreamingEagles said:Using the company’s “Wisdom Index” method, which asks voters to predict the result of the next election rather than which party they would back, Labour is on 34 per cent, up two points on last month. The Tories are unchanged on 29 per cent, with the Liberal Democrats down one point on 15 per cent. The UK Independence Party is down to 13, adding to evidence that its recent surge is fading.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/10150555/Voters-back-George-Osbornes-welfare-crackdown-finds-poll.html0 -
But not by me. 40-50% is way too high.HYUFD said:SeanF - 'Survived' being the operative word, that is not the same as having well funded public services which we seek in the 21st century. South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore do have high gdps per capita, but they do not invest in core services to the extent the average OECD nation does (I would also assume they have a greater degree of philanthropy?) and clearly if you are poor or on a low income and live there that will impact upon the quality of service you receive. I do agree we could borrow from some of their ideas, ie more insurance based healthcare funding, unemployment insurance etc, but also they have more dutiful societies with closer-knit family units who do not turn to crime and have books in their homes etc which reduces the need for high spending on law and order, libraries in low income areas etc. If you want to move there, or the UAE then be free to do so, but we should not seek to copy them entirely, if you want a society where the state spends even more than here move to France, Cuba or Sweden, but 40-50% of GDP spending is fine by me!
0 -
It also makes sense in relieving the main east-west cross-Capital Tube line, the Central.JosiasJessop said:
As I've pointed out in the past, the premium fares on HS2 are for a faster journey. Indeed, a massively faster journey if you travel from the north and don't have to cross London to reach Victoria.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No because that will be used by commuters and is unlikely to have premium fares (as with the current HS1 out to Kent).JosiasJessop said:
As you know, I utterly disagree. What is your verdict on Crossrail? Is that an expensive white elephant as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
As for the fares on Crossrail: Londoners are paying for it already, and squealing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8529717.stm
IMHO Crossrail only makes sense in conjunction with Boris Island and a development of the Thames corridor.
My only gripe regarding Crossrail was that if the Central line had been built to main-line diameter (say 16ft rather than 12ft) it could have carried main-line trains 113 years ago, thus avoiding the need to build Crossrail! And the former outposts of North Weald and Ongar wouldn't have been served by titchy little Tube-sized trains (we have to get steam locomotives and carriages to the Epping Ongar Railway by road!).
BTW HS2 won't serve Victoria - that's the Crossrail 2 proposal (SW to NE).0 -
Avery seems to be living in a world of his own. I knew what "up the spout" was when I as 5 years old. Of course when I was 5 the world was a dirtier place, with cobbled streets still in many places. I earned a few coppers a week, cleaning up horse manure. I'll show you mine, if you show me your's was a familier game on the streets. Ah, a different world indeed.OldKingCole said:
Your what with their what? You cannot be serious (It being Wimbledon fortnight!)AveryLP said:
Moderator.tim said:
Peter Kellners Date NightsAveryLP said:
"it's me, Cathy, I've come home"
Dave's Date Nights
" lock and load and have one up the spout"
"As a Father" Dave's subliminal messaging seems to be running high at the moment.
Lock and load
When a female intentionally gets pregnant by her boyfriend, or a guy she's interested in to make sure that the guy is a part of her life forever, usually via marriage.
Up the Spout
Pregnant.
My two and four-year-old nephews have just read tim's post on their iPhones.
Please would you apply the PB porn filter as per official opposition policy.0 -
I think you'll like these TSE:TheScreamingEagles said:
I've caught those trains many many times.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Intriguingly, Virgin have a poster campaign here in London on the Tube showing their trains can do London to Manc in 2hrs 8 mins if I recall correctly.TheScreamingEagles said:
Indeed.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
We should spend that money on faster trains between Sheffield and Manchester.
They are my favourite train company.
http://www.ltmuseumshop.co.uk/exclusive-and-vintage/virgin-train-posters.html0 -
0
-
*Like*TheScreamingEagles said:@Sunil, this is my favourite Virgin train poster
http://www.kickette.com/files/2010/08/ryan.jpg 0 -
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smart-moneys-on-rudd-for-now-20130629-2p3vi.html
The money says, it's Rudd all the way !0 -
Why does it matter if 46% blame Labour for the economic woes? Surely they are either ConDem pledges or blame Labour but are voting for them anyway? In other words, it's priced in to VI.TheScreamingEagles said:The poll article isn't up, but
Labour's other big problem is illustrated by the Opinium opinion poll that we publish today. The party's 10-point headline lead, which is in line with most other recent polls, is not the most important figure.
The anguish number for Labour is that a near-majority, 46% of respondents, continue to blame Britain's economic situation on the last government, as opposed to only 29% who place culpability on the coalition.
A majority don't trust either party with the economy. Of those choosing a team, more say they would prefer to have David Cameron and George Osborne in charge of the economy than Ed Miliband and Ed Balls.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/29/labour-needs-to-look-credible
0 -
Squealing as in squealing with delight? Crossrail is about capacity as much as connectivity. Now build Crossrail 2.JosiasJessop said:
As I've pointed out in the past, the premium fares on HS2 are for a faster journey. Indeed, a massively faster journey if you travel from the north and don't have to cross London to reach Victoria.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No because that will be used by commuters and is unlikely to have premium fares (as with the current HS1 out to Kent).JosiasJessop said:
As you know, I utterly disagree. What is your verdict on Crossrail? Is that an expensive white elephant as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
As for the fares on Crossrail: Londoners are paying for it already, and squealing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8529717.stm
IMHO Crossrail only makes sense in conjunction with Boris Island and a development of the Thames corridor.
0 -
There's a school of thought that says, since the economy is the biggest issue facing the country (as per the Mori issues index), people may choose the way they vote in 2015 based largely on the economy.Bobajob said:
Why does it matter if 46% blame Labour for the economic woes? Surely they are either ConDem pledges or blame Labour but are voting for them anyway? In other words, it's priced in to VI.TheScreamingEagles said:The poll article isn't up, but
Labour's other big problem is illustrated by the Opinium opinion poll that we publish today. The party's 10-point headline lead, which is in line with most other recent polls, is not the most important figure.
The anguish number for Labour is that a near-majority, 46% of respondents, continue to blame Britain's economic situation on the last government, as opposed to only 29% who place culpability on the coalition.
A majority don't trust either party with the economy. Of those choosing a team, more say they would prefer to have David Cameron and George Osborne in charge of the economy than Ed Miliband and Ed Balls.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/29/labour-needs-to-look-credible
Now are they going to vote for the people perceived to have caused the economic problems and/or the people who may make the economy worse.0 -
But the Central line is packed during the rush hours, and mostly fine at other times. You are spending £15 billion to relieve pressure on a line for 3-4 hours a day.Sunil_Prasannan said:
It also makes sense in relieving the main east-west cross-Capital Tube line, the Central.JosiasJessop said:
As I've pointed out in the past, the premium fares on HS2 are for a faster journey. Indeed, a massively faster journey if you travel from the north and don't have to cross London to reach Victoria.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No because that will be used by commuters and is unlikely to have premium fares (as with the current HS1 out to Kent).JosiasJessop said:
As you know, I utterly disagree. What is your verdict on Crossrail? Is that an expensive white elephant as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
As for the fares on Crossrail: Londoners are paying for it already, and squealing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8529717.stm
IMHO Crossrail only makes sense in conjunction with Boris Island and a development of the Thames corridor.
My only gripe regarding Crossrail was that if the Central line had been built to main-line diameter (say 16ft rather than 12ft) it could have carried main-line trains 113 years ago, thus avoiding the need to build Crossrail! And the former outposts of North Weald and Ongar wouldn't have been served by titchy little Tube-sized trains (we have to get steam locomotives and carriages to the Epping Ongar Railway by road!).
BTW HS2 won't serve Victoria - that's the Crossrail 2 proposal (SW to NE).
Which is fine if you are looking for the future and want to increase capacity to allow growth. Yet it seems rather blind to say looking at future capacity is fine for Crossrail and London, but not the wider network.
And HS2 will increase capacity for both passengers and freight on the existing network, with none of the madness of the WCML upgrade that cost taxpayers at least £9 billion for very limited improvements.0 -
SeanF - As I said, we live in a globalised world now, if you really want a very low tax state, with services almost entirely funded by insurance and few services and social security provision for those on low incomes and not working in white collar jobs for large corporations then the likes of South Korea would be fine for you and you are quite welcome to move there!0
-
We can already get from London to Birmingham in 1hr 22 mins, why spend 32 billion trying to shave off a few minutes?JosiasJessop said:
But the Central line is packed during the rush hours, and mostly fine at other times. You are spending £15 billion to relieve pressure on a line for 3-4 hours a day.Sunil_Prasannan said:
It also makes sense in relieving the main east-west cross-Capital Tube line, the Central.JosiasJessop said:
As I've pointed out in the past, the premium fares on HS2 are for a faster journey. Indeed, a massively faster journey if you travel from the north and don't have to cross London to reach Victoria.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No because that will be used by commuters and is unlikely to have premium fares (as with the current HS1 out to Kent).JosiasJessop said:
As you know, I utterly disagree. What is your verdict on Crossrail? Is that an expensive white elephant as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
As for the fares on Crossrail: Londoners are paying for it already, and squealing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8529717.stm
IMHO Crossrail only makes sense in conjunction with Boris Island and a development of the Thames corridor.
My only gripe regarding Crossrail was that if the Central line had been built to main-line diameter (say 16ft rather than 12ft) it could have carried main-line trains 113 years ago, thus avoiding the need to build Crossrail! And the former outposts of North Weald and Ongar wouldn't have been served by titchy little Tube-sized trains (we have to get steam locomotives and carriages to the Epping Ongar Railway by road!).
BTW HS2 won't serve Victoria - that's the Crossrail 2 proposal (SW to NE).
Which is fine if you are looking for the future and want to increase capacity to allow growth. Yet it seems rather blind to say looking at future capacity is fine for Crossrail and London, but not the wider network.
And HS2 will increase capacity for both passengers and freight on the existing network, with none of the madness of the WCML upgrade that cost taxpayers at least £9 billion for very limited improvements.
http://www.ltmuseumshop.co.uk/exclusive-and-vintage/virgin-train-posters/product/birmingham-in-just-1hr-22mins-poster.html0 -
Squealing at the cost:Bobajob said:
Squealing as in squealing with delight? Crossrail is about capacity as much as connectivity. Now build Crossrail 2.JosiasJessop said:
As I've pointed out in the past, the premium fares on HS2 are for a faster journey. Indeed, a massively faster journey if you travel from the north and don't have to cross London to reach Victoria.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No because that will be used by commuters and is unlikely to have premium fares (as with the current HS1 out to Kent).JosiasJessop said:
As you know, I utterly disagree. What is your verdict on Crossrail? Is that an expensive white elephant as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
As for the fares on Crossrail: Londoners are paying for it already, and squealing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8529717.stm
IMHO Crossrail only makes sense in conjunction with Boris Island and a development of the Thames corridor.Londoners are "unfairly burdened" with half the cost of the £16bn Crossrail, a London Assembly report said.
Still, it's good to know that you're in favour of HS2 as well, as that will increase capacity massively. Or does London have it's own special rules?
Business premises in the capital with a rateable value in excess of £55,000 will raise £4.1bn of the cost by paying a 2% business rate levy.0 -
Surbiton - Indeed, he led Abbott 51-34% in a Galaxy poll today as best PM and the Coalition only led 51-49% after second preferences (and indeed Hawke in 1990 and Howard in 1998 won despite losing 51-49). If Rudd gets a huge swing in Queensland marginal as that Morgan poll showed last week he could be back in the Lodge. I am glad I put a bet on the ALP just before Gillard went!0
-
For the reasons I have given passim. Capacity is king: passenger and freight numbers on the rail network have increased massively over the last few years, and it looks as though that trend will continue. Local improvements can help, but only so much (similar improvements are being done on LU, such as more frequent and longer trains).Sunil_Prasannan said:
We can already get from London to Birmingham in 1hr 22 mins, why spend 32 billion trying to shave off a few minutes?JosiasJessop said:
But the Central line is packed during the rush hours, and mostly fine at other times. You are spending £15 billion to relieve pressure on a line for 3-4 hours a day.Sunil_Prasannan said:
It also makes sense in relieving the main east-west cross-Capital Tube line, the Central.JosiasJessop said:
As I've pointed out in the past, the premium fares on HS2 are for a faster journey. Indeed, a massively faster journey if you travel from the north and don't have to cross London to reach Victoria.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No because that will be used by commuters and is unlikely to have premium fares (as with the current HS1 out to Kent).JosiasJessop said:
As you know, I utterly disagree. What is your verdict on Crossrail? Is that an expensive white elephant as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
As for the fares on Crossrail: Londoners are paying for it already, and squealing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8529717.stm
IMHO Crossrail only makes sense in conjunction with Boris Island and a development of the Thames corridor.
My only gripe regarding Crossrail was that if the Central line had been built to main-line diameter (say 16ft rather than 12ft) it could have carried main-line trains 113 years ago, thus avoiding the need to build Crossrail! And the former outposts of North Weald and Ongar wouldn't have been served by titchy little Tube-sized trains (we have to get steam locomotives and carriages to the Epping Ongar Railway by road!).
BTW HS2 won't serve Victoria - that's the Crossrail 2 proposal (SW to NE).
Which is fine if you are looking for the future and want to increase capacity to allow growth. Yet it seems rather blind to say looking at future capacity is fine for Crossrail and London, but not the wider network.
And HS2 will increase capacity for both passengers and freight on the existing network, with none of the madness of the WCML upgrade that cost taxpayers at least £9 billion for very limited improvements.
http://www.ltmuseumshop.co.uk/exclusive-and-vintage/virgin-train-posters/product/birmingham-in-just-1hr-22mins-poster.html
But there comes a time when a new line is needed. By shifting many high-speed services off existing tracks, you free up a great deal of capacity for freight and local passenger services that find it hard to coexist with high-speed services.
But let me your the question another way: why should we pay £15 billion for Crossrail just so rich (b/w)ankers can get to work a couple of minutes quicker in the City? After all, London already has a magnificent public transport infrastructure that any other city in Britain would love to have.
In the means of a peace offering, I presume you've seen the article on today's celebratory run by Bittern?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23109971
Although I always preferred the look of Stanier's Coronation class to the inferior A4's. ;-)0 -
Betting related post
Arsenal have bid for Wayne Rooney, Chelsea expected to follow suit
There's a couple of markets up on his next club.
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/football-specials/wayne-rooney/next-club0 -
Wealthy bankers are the only people who work in Greater London? Remember, UNLIKE HS2, Crossrail will be a local route for local people, and won't have those dreadful "parkway" stations miles away from the nearest built-up area! I have to confess I do have local bias - Ilford station is on the Crossrail route. I only wish there were links restored at either Leyton or Newbury Park (which is actually a bit nearer to me than Ilford itself) to get main-line trains back onto the Epping and Hainault branches!JosiasJessop said:
For the reasons I have given passim. Capacity is king: passenger and freight numbers on the rail network have increased massively over the last few years, and it looks as though that trend will continue. Local improvements can help, but only so much (similar improvements are being done on LU, such as more frequent and longer trains).Sunil_Prasannan said:
We can already get from London to Birmingham in 1hr 22 mins, why spend 32 billion trying to shave off a few minutes?JosiasJessop said:
But the Central line is packed during the rush hours, and mostly fine at other times. You are spending £15 billion to relieve pressure on a line for 3-4 hours a day.Sunil_Prasannan said:
It also makes sense in relieving the main east-west cross-Capital Tube line, the Central.JosiasJessop said:
As I've pointed out in the past, the premium fares on HS2 are for a faster journey. Indeed, a massively faster journey if you travel from the north and don't have to cross London to reach Victoria.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No because that will be used by commuters and is unlikely to have premium fares (as with the current HS1 out to Kent).JosiasJessop said:
As you know, I utterly disagree. What is your verdict on Crossrail? Is that an expensive white elephant as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
As for the fares on Crossrail: Londoners are paying for it already, and squealing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8529717.stm
IMHO Crossrail only makes sense in conjunction with Boris Island and a development of the Thames corridor.
My only gripe regarding Crossrail was that if the Central line had been built to main-line diameter (say 16ft rather than 12ft) it could have carried main-line trains 113 years ago, thus avoiding the need to build Crossrail! And the former outposts of North Weald and Ongar wouldn't have been served by titchy little Tube-sized trains (we have to get steam locomotives and carriages to the Epping Ongar Railway by road!).
BTW HS2 won't serve Victoria - that's the Crossrail 2 proposal (SW to NE).
Which is fine if you are looking for the future and want to increase capacity to allow growth. Yet it seems rather blind to say looking at future capacity is fine for Crossrail and London, but not the wider network.
And HS2 will increase capacity for both passengers and freight on the existing network, with none of the madness of the WCML upgrade that cost taxpayers at least £9 billion for very limited improvements.
http://www.ltmuseumshop.co.uk/exclusive-and-vintage/virgin-train-posters/product/birmingham-in-just-1hr-22mins-poster.html
But there comes a time when a new line is needed. By shifting many high-speed services off existing tracks, you free up a great deal of capacity for freight and local passenger services that find it hard to coexist with high-speed services.
But let me your the question another way: why should we pay £15 billion for Crossrail just so rich (b/w)ankers can get to work a couple of minutes quicker in the City? After all, London already has a magnificent public transport infrastructure that any other city in Britain would love to have.
In the means of a peace offering, I presume you've seen the article on today's celebratory run by Bittern?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23109971
Although I always preferred the look of Stanier's Coronation class to the inferior A4's. ;-)
If - if - capacity is king, then why do we need an over-engineered 200 mph line when a "traditional" 140 mph line will do?0 -
The Stones now on at Glastonbury, live on BBC20
-
Before we bid buenas noches to this thread I'd like to add my thanks AndyJS for some sterling work on the data which kicked it off. Muchas gracias.0
-
Yes I'd better thank AndyJS too - must have been a daunting task!0
-
Yes, but that's a different point, isn't it? There may or may not be a swingback by 2015, but the key point now is the starting lead, rather than a selection of the various factors (some recognised, some not) which led to that lead. The case for saying the secondary questions are more important - apart from the probable real reason, which is that it makes a more interesting article - is that people are more influenced by their assessment of past and present economic competence than they themselves think they are, so if they say "I think Brown was to blame in 2008 but I plan to vote Labour in 2015 because of [some other reason]", we shouldn't believe them.Sean_F said:
As an experienced politician, you should know that mid-term ratings aren't how things turn out on election day.NickPalmer said:
Actually, Rawnsley is precisely wrong. The most important figure is what, having taken the other factors mentioned into account, people currently intend to vote. It's possible that if nobody thought Labour was to blame for the economic situation or if everyone regarded the Eds as new Messiahs, then Labour would have a 20- or 30-point lead. But 10 will do.0 -
Because the cost of building a new 140MPH line will not be much different from a 200MPH line.(although the stated HS2 speed is 'up to' 250 MPH). In fact, a line with a lower maximum speed that handled freight might actually cost more: high speed lines often have fierce gradients - often 2.5-4% which means reduced civil engineering costs, and the trains are much lighter. As with everything else, it is a trade-off.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Wealthy bankers are the only people who work in Greater London? Remember, UNLIKE HS2, Crossrail will be a local route for local people, and won't have those dreadful "parkway" stations miles away from the nearest built-up area! I have to confess I do have local bias - Ilford station is on the Crossrail route. I only wish there were links restored at either Leyton or Newbury Park (which is actually a bit nearer to me than Ilford itself) to get main-line trains back onto the Epping and Hainault branches!JosiasJessop said:
For the reasons I have given passim. Capacity is king: passenger and freight numbers on the rail network have increased massively over the last few years, and it looks as though that trend will continue. Local improvements can help, but only so much (similar improvements are being done on LU, such as more frequent and longer trains).Sunil_Prasannan said:
We can already get from London to Birmingham in 1hr 22 mins, why spend 32 billion trying to shave off a few minutes?JosiasJessop said:
But the Central line is packed during the rush hours, and mostly fine at other times. You are spending £15 billion to relieve pressure on a line for 3-4 hours a day.Sunil_Prasannan said:
It also makes sense in relieving the main east-west cross-Capital Tube line, the Central.JosiasJessop said:
As I've pointed out in the past, the premium fares on HS2 are for a faster journey. Indeed, a massively faster journey if you travel from the north and don't have to cross London to reach Victoria.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No because that will be used by commuters and is unlikely to have premium fares (as with the current HS1 out to Kent).JosiasJessop said:
As you know, I utterly disagree. What is your verdict on Crossrail? Is that an expensive white elephant as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
As for the fares on Crossrail: Londoners are paying for it already, and squealing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8529717.stm
IMHO Crossrail only makes sense in conjunction with Boris Island and a development of the Thames corridor.
My only gripe regarding Crossrail was that if the Central line had been built to main-line diameter (say 16ft rather than 12ft) it could have carried main-line trains 113 years ago, thus avoiding the need to build Crossrail! And the former outposts of North Weald and Ongar wouldn't have been served by titchy little Tube-sized trains (we have to get steam locomotives and carriages to the Epping Ongar Railway by road!).
BTW HS2 won't serve Victoria - that's the Crossrail 2 proposal (SW to NE).
Which is fine if you are looking for the future and want to increase capacity to allow growth. Yet it seems rather blind to say looking at future capacity is fine for Crossrail and London, but not the wider network.
And HS2 will increase capacity for both passengers and freight on the existing network, with none of the madness of the WCML upgrade that cost taxpayers at least £9 billion for very limited improvements.
http://www.ltmuseumshop.co.uk/exclusive-and-vintage/virgin-train-posters/product/birmingham-in-just-1hr-22mins-poster.html
But there comes a time when a new line is needed. By shifting many high-speed services off existing tracks, you free up a great deal of capacity for freight and local passenger services that find it hard to coexist with high-speed services.
But let me your the question another way: why should we pay £15 billion for Crossrail just so rich (b/w)ankers can get to work a couple of minutes quicker in the City? After all, London already has a magnificent public transport infrastructure that any other city in Britain would love to have.
In the means of a peace offering, I presume you've seen the article on today's celebratory run by Bittern?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23109971
Although I always preferred the look of Stanier's Coronation class to the inferior A4's. ;-)
If - if - capacity is king, then why do we need an over-engineered 200 mph line when a "traditional" 140 mph line will do?
Also note that it is very difficult to engineer a line that can cope with both high-speed passenger and local and freight services at the same time. The slower trains get in the way of the high-speed ones, and the higher track cant on high-speed curves is a barrier to many types of freight trains, especially loose bulk goods such as coal.
http://www.europakorridoren.se/spargeometri.pdf
I was having fun with the bankers bit - just turning around some of the arguments used about HS2.
0 -
@TSE Wayne Rooney would be a very good match for Arsenal. He epitomises what they lack. I was making this point to my nephew earlier today (who disagreed, but he's an Ipswich fan, so he knows nothing about nothing).0
-
Rudd may be like Kim Campbell in 1993.HYUFD said:Surbiton - Indeed, he led Abbott 51-34% in a Galaxy poll today as best PM and the Coalition only led 51-49% after second preferences (and indeed Hawke in 1990 and Howard in 1998 won despite losing 51-49). If Rudd gets a huge swing in Queensland marginal as that Morgan poll showed last week he could be back in the Lodge. I am glad I put a bet on the ALP just before Gillard went!
0 -
I'd rather see the UK better governed than have to move.HYUFD said:SeanF - As I said, we live in a globalised world now, if you really want a very low tax state, with services almost entirely funded by insurance and few services and social security provision for those on low incomes and not working in white collar jobs for large corporations then the likes of South Korea would be fine for you and you are quite welcome to move there!
0 -
Here's one of the stories doing the rounds.antifrank said:@TSE Wayne Rooney would be a very good match for Arsenal. He epitomises what they lack. I was making this point to my nephew earlier today (who disagreed, but he's an Ipswich fan, so he knows nothing about nothing).
I agree he'd be a good fit for Arsenal, particularly if they sign Higuain.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/arsenal-transfer-news-wayne-rooney-20107340 -
You mean he's going to pose semi nude for pictures in a magazine?Sean_F said:
Rudd may be like Kim Campbell in 1993.HYUFD said:Surbiton - Indeed, he led Abbott 51-34% in a Galaxy poll today as best PM and the Coalition only led 51-49% after second preferences (and indeed Hawke in 1990 and Howard in 1998 won despite losing 51-49). If Rudd gets a huge swing in Queensland marginal as that Morgan poll showed last week he could be back in the Lodge. I am glad I put a bet on the ALP just before Gillard went!
0 -
So there you go, we don't need a 250mph line if the gradients/curves preclude extra freight capacity.JosiasJessop said:
Because the cost of building a new 140MPH line will not be much different from a 200MPH line.(although the stated HS2 speed is 'up to' 250 MPH). In fact, a line with a lower maximum speed that handled freight might actually cost more: high speed lines often have fierce gradients - often 2.5-4% which means reduced civil engineering costs, and the trains are much lighter. As with everything else, it is a trade-off.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Wealthy bankers are the only people who work in Greater London? Remember, UNLIKE HS2, Crossrail will be a local route for local people, and won't have those dreadful "parkway" stations miles away from the nearest built-up area! I have to confess I do have local bias - Ilford station is on the Crossrail route. I only wish there were links restored at either Leyton or Newbury Park (which is actually a bit nearer to me than Ilford itself) to get main-line trains back onto the Epping and Hainault branches!JosiasJessop said:
For the reasons I have given passim. Capacity is king: passenger and freight numbers on the rail network have increased massively over the last few years, and it looks as though that trend will continue. Local improvements can help, but only so much (similar improvements are being done on LU, such as more frequent and longer trains).Sunil_Prasannan said:
We can already get from London to Birmingham in 1hr 22 mins, why spend 32 billion trying to shave off a few minutes?JosiasJessop said:
But the Central line is packed during the rush hours, and mostly fine at other times. You are spending £15 billion to relieve pressure on a line for 3-4 hours a day.Sunil_Prasannan said:
It also makes sense in relieving the main east-west cross-Capital Tube line, the Central.JosiasJessop said:
As I've pointed out in the past, the premium fares on HS2 are for a faster journey. Indeed, a massively faster journey if you travel from the north and don't have to cross London to reach Victoria.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No because that will be used by commuters and is unlikely to have premium fares (as with the current HS1 out to Kent).JosiasJessop said:
As you know, I utterly disagree. What is your verdict on Crossrail? Is that an expensive white elephant as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
As for the fares on Crossrail: Londoners are paying for it already, and squealing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8529717.stm
IMHO Crossrail only makes sense in conjunction with Boris Island and a development of the Thames corridor.
My only gripe regarding Crossrail was that if the Central line had been built to main-line diameter (say 16ft rather than 12ft) it could have carried main-line trains 113 years ago, thus avoiding the need to build Crossrail! And the former outposts of North Weald and Ongar wouldn't have been served by titchy little Tube-sized trains (we have to get steam locomotives and carriages to the Epping Ongar Railway by road!).
BTW HS2 won't serve Victoria - that's the Crossrail 2 proposal (SW to NE).
Which is fine if you are looking for the future and want to increase capacity to allow growth. Yet it seems rather blind to say looking at future capacity is fine for Crossrail and London, but not the wider network.
And HS2 will increase capacity for both passengers and freight on the existing network, with none of the madness of the WCML upgrade that cost taxpayers at least £9 billion for very limited improvements.
http://www.ltmuseumshop.co.uk/exclusive-and-vintage/virgin-train-posters/product/birmingham-in-just-1hr-22mins-poster.html
But there comes a time when a new line is needed. By shifting many high-speed services off existing tracks, you free up a great deal of capacity for freight and local passenger services that find it hard to coexist with high-speed services.
But let me your the question another way: why should we pay £15 billion for Crossrail just so rich (b/w)ankers can get to work a couple of minutes quicker in the City? After all, London already has a magnificent public transport infrastructure that any other city in Britain would love to have.
In the means of a peace offering, I presume you've seen the article on today's celebratory run by Bittern?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23109971
Although I always preferred the look of Stanier's Coronation class to the inferior A4's. ;-)
If - if - capacity is king, then why do we need an over-engineered 200 mph line when a "traditional" 140 mph line will do?
Also note that it is very difficult to engineer a line that can cope with both high-speed passenger and local and freight services at the same time. The slower trains get in the way of the high-speed ones, and the higher track cant on high-speed curves is a barrier to many types of freight trains, especially loose bulk goods such as coal.
http://www.europakorridoren.se/spargeometri.pdf
I was having fun with the bankers bit - just turning around some of the arguments used about HS2.
Also there's the M6 Toll effect. Namely the M6 Toll motorway opened as a turnpike to divert M6 traffic away from the Birmingham urban area, but several years down the line, because the road is tolled, it is running below capacity as commuters and hauliers use the old M6 to reduce their costs. I am sure something similar will happen to HS2 if the price differentials with existing lines are similar to the premium fares charged on HS1 between London and Kent.
BTW if you (or other PB trainspotters) haven't been, last few tickets available for Epping Ongar's Tube 150 event, the remaining days being tomorrow and Monday (more tickets available for Monday):
http://eorailway.co.uk/events/tube150/
0 -
Should we have a referendum on HS2.
Might make for a good thread header.0 -
BTW the oldest section of the Tube network actually first opened in 1856 - Leyton to Loughton on the Central line, built by the Eastern Counties Railway!0
-
But, but, surely more pressing concerns would be:TheScreamingEagles said:Should we have a referendum on HS2.
Might make for a good thread header.
Would the HS2 referendum be conducted by AV?
Would those living north of the Border be eligible to vote? 0 -
Sean F - No that was Gillard's role, it is more likely Rudd will be Major to Abbott's Kinnock!0
-
Or for that matter, Keating to Abbott's Hewson0
-
I hope not.TheScreamingEagles said:
You mean he's going to pose semi nude for pictures in a magazine?Sean_F said:
Rudd may be like Kim Campbell in 1993.HYUFD said:Surbiton - Indeed, he led Abbott 51-34% in a Galaxy poll today as best PM and the Coalition only led 51-49% after second preferences (and indeed Hawke in 1990 and Howard in 1998 won despite losing 51-49). If Rudd gets a huge swing in Queensland marginal as that Morgan poll showed last week he could be back in the Lodge. I am glad I put a bet on the ALP just before Gillard went!
0 -
SeanF - Yes, but you have a rather ideological view of 'better governed'0
-
Don't most posters?HYUFD said:SeanF - Yes, but you have a rather ideological view of 'better governed'
0 -
Urrrm, no. The high-speed line will reduce the number of high-speed trains on existing lines, creating new paths for freight and local passenger services on those lines.Sunil_Prasannan said:
So there you go, we don't need a 250mph line if the gradients/curves preclude extra freight capacity.JosiasJessop said:
Because the cost of building a new 140MPH line will not be much different from a 200MPH line.(although the stated HS2 speed is 'up to' 250 MPH). In fact, a line with a lower maximum speed that handled freight might actually cost more: high speed lines often have fierce gradients - often 2.5-4% which means reduced civil engineering costs, and the trains are much lighter. As with everything else, it is a trade-off.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Wealthy bankers are the only people who work in Greater London? Remember, UNLIKE HS2, Crossrail will be a local route for local people, and won't have those dreadful "parkway" stations miles away from the nearest built-up area! I have to confess I do have local bias - Ilford station is on the Crossrail route. I only wish there were links restored at either Leyton or Newbury Park (which is actually a bit nearer to me than Ilford itself) to get main-line trains back onto the Epping and Hainault branches!JosiasJessop said:
For the reasons I have given passim. Capacity is king: passenger and freight numbers on the rail network have increased massively over the last few years, and it looks as though that trend will continue. Local improvements can help, but only so much (similar improvements are being done on LU, such as more frequent and longer trains).Sunil_Prasannan said:
We can already get from London to Birmingham in 1hr 22 mins, why spend 32 billion trying to shave off a few minutes?JosiasJessop said:
But the Central line is packed during the rush hours, and mostly fine at other times. You are spending £15 billion to relieve pressure on a line for 3-4 hours a day.Sunil_Prasannan said:
It also makes sense in relieving the main east-west cross-Capital Tube line, the Central.JosiasJessop said:
As I've pointed out in the past, the premium fares on HS2 are for a faster journey. Indeed, a massively faster journey if you travel from the north and don't have to cross London to reach Victoria.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No because that will be used by commuters and is unlikely to have premium fares (as with the current HS1 out to Kent).JosiasJessop said:
As you know, I utterly disagree. What is your verdict on Crossrail? Is that an expensive white elephant as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
As for the fares on Crossrail: Londoners are paying for it already, and squealing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8529717.stm
IMHO Crossrail only makes sense in conjunction with Boris Island and a development of the Thames corridor.
My only gripe regarding Crossrail was that if the Central line had been built to main-line diameter (say 16ft rather than 12ft) it could have carried main-line trains 113 years ago, thus avoiding the need to build Crossrail! And the former outposts of North Weald and Ongar wouldn't have been served by titchy little Tube-sized trains (we have to get steam locomotives and carriages to the Epping Ongar Railway by road!).
BTW HS2 won't serve Victoria - that's the Crossrail 2 proposal (SW to NE).
Which is fine if you are looking for the future and want to increase capacity to allow growth. Yet it seems rather blind to say looking at future capacity is fine for Crossrail and London, but not the wider network.
And HS2 will increase capacity for both passengers and freight on the existing network, with none of the madness of the WCML upgrade that cost taxpayers at least £9 billion for very limited improvements.
http://www.ltmuseumshop.co.uk/exclusive-and-vintage/virgin-train-posters/product/birmingham-in-just-1hr-22mins-poster.html
But there comes a time when a new line is needed. By shifting many high-speed services off existing tracks, you free up a great deal of capacity for freight and local passenger services that find it hard to coexist with high-speed services.
But let me your the question another way: why should we pay £15 billion for Crossrail just so rich (b/w)ankers can get to work a couple of minutes quicker in the City? After all, London already has a magnificent public transport infrastructure that any other city in Britain would love to have.
In the means of a peace offering, I presume you've seen the article on today's celebratory run by Bittern?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23109971
Although I always preferred the look of Stanier's Coronation class to the inferior A4's. ;-)
If - if - capacity is king, then why do we need an over-engineered 200 mph line when a "traditional" 140 mph line will do?
Also note that it is very difficult to engineer a line that can cope with both high-speed passenger and local and freight services at the same time. The slower trains get in the way of the high-speed ones, and the higher track cant on high-speed curves is a barrier to many types of freight trains, especially loose bulk goods such as coal.
http://www.europakorridoren.se/spargeometri.pdf
I was having fun with the bankers bit - just turning around some of the arguments used about HS2.
Also there's the M6 Toll effect. Namely the M6 Toll motorway opened as a turnpike to divert M6 traffic away from the Birmingham urban area, but several years down the line, because the road is tolled, it is running below capacity as commuters and hauliers use the old M6 to reduce their costs. I am sure something similar will happen to HS2 if the price differentials with existing lines are similar to the premium fares charged on HS1 between London and Kent.
BTW if you (or other PB trainspotters) haven't been, last few tickets available for Epping Ongar's Tube 150 event, the remaining days being tomorrow and Monday (more tickets available for Monday):
http://eorailway.co.uk/events/tube150/
The M6 Toll comparison is interesting, but IMHO bogus. It is an individual's choice which to use. That will not be the case on the railways, which are heavily regulated wrt paths.
And again you do not acknowledge that comparing prices for HS1 local services to Kent is like comparing apples and oranges: the journey on HS1 is quicker, sometimes much so.
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree, so perhaps it's best to leave this for tonight and save the thread for meaningful discussions of Scottish AV referendum polling by cats.
Good luck with the Tube 150 event! Sadly I cannot make it (or more accurately, Mrs J won't let me go).0 -
I don't always entirely agree with my namesake, but I do think that is a very interesting post indeed. Of course, the identical point could be made about Labour, but it's still a good point.another_richard said:
True but I'm baffled by how much the PB Tories obsess about UKIP's supposed failings while ignoring how weak the Conservative strategic position is.
While its very easy to see scenarios in which the Conservatives lose MPs and power I can't see a scenario in which things go well for the Conservatives.
Let us assume that the Conservatives do well in 2015, they hold off Labour and UKIP and gain a few seats from the LibDems finishing with 315 MPs.
What happens then ?
In a weak minority government, attacked by Labour, LibDems and UKIP, unable to blame everything anymore on Labour, having to deal with all the underlying problems they've merely postponed because they were too politically difficult.
Sounds like political hell to me and the sort of scenario which could lead to Conservative destruction in 2018-20.
The thing is, though, assuming one accepts it - what does one do? Give up?
I don't see any choice but to follow Churchill's lead and Keep Buggering On, and, in the event that the dice do fall in the way a_r indicates, try to do a deal with our LibDem friends, or possibly the Irish. Neither would be great, but it's probably true that a minority government would be a worse option.
0 -
Still, it's good to know that you're in favour of HS2 as well, as that will increase capacity massively. Or does London have it's own special rules?JosiasJessop said:
Squealing at the cost:Bobajob said:
Squealing as in squealing with delight? Crossrail is about capacity as much as connectivity. Now build Crossrail 2.JosiasJessop said:
As I've pointed out in the past, the premium fares on HS2 are for a faster journey. Indeed, a massively faster journey if you travel from the north and don't have to cross London to reach Victoria.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No because that will be used by commuters and is unlikely to have premium fares (as with the current HS1 out to Kent).JosiasJessop said:
As you know, I utterly disagree. What is your verdict on Crossrail? Is that an expensive white elephant as well?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Expensive. White. Elephant.TheScreamingEagles said:HS2: ministers 'have misled public' over report on costs
Study attacked by coalition was approved by transport department's top civil servant before publication
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/29/hs2-ministers-misled-public-report
As for the fares on Crossrail: Londoners are paying for it already, and squealing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8529717.stm
IMHO Crossrail only makes sense in conjunction with Boris Island and a development of the Thames corridor.Londoners are "unfairly burdened" with half the cost of the £16bn Crossrail, a London Assembly report said.
Business premises in the capital with a rateable value in excess of £55,000 will raise £4.1bn of the cost by paying a 2% business rate levy.
It has its own rules to some extent, yes, as its a world city and driver of the whole economy. But, that said, I am in favour of HS2 yes, and Crossrail 2.0 -
Antifrank - True, but what is considered 'better governed' also varies from nation to nation, as well as ideological standpoint!0
