|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 5, 2023 13:28:37 GMT
Hmmm ... you genuinely believe that's going to happen then? I can't believe just how easily some people can be placated, after everything that's taken place. It may or may not happen. The point is at least it might happen whereas carry on with HS2 it definitely won't happen. At least a Labour government will have some money to use once the Tories are ousted and, despite my reservations about Starmer's Labour, there's a good chance they will do something constructive with it. Scrapping HS2 is the least crap of 2 crap options. And fair play to Sunak for making the call. It's not the least of 2 crap options if one of the two options is fuck all. And Sunak couldn't give a shit about what happens after he's out of power. It's a scorched earth policy designed to ensure no future government can resurrect the idea if they so wish, whilst ensuring wealthy Tory land owners get to buy back the land they sold for fraction of the price they sold it for. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 5, 2023 13:30:38 GMT
If you're happy to repeatedly have your pants pulled down and watch your hard earned taxes get deliberately syphoned off, to make very wealthy people even richer, then you jolly well crack on mate. It's always happened whether Tory or Labour, nothing will change! That just isn't true, as much as you'd like it to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 5, 2023 13:39:46 GMT
How are you going to get freight off the roads when the existing system is old and full to capacity, without building new infrastructure across green belt land ? You upgrade the existing tracks, re-open lines that were closed in the Beaching era, double up the existing lines and upgrade the rolling stock. Where you do need to build on the green belt you do it between areas that aren't served ok by the existing infrastructure - north/south is relatively well serviced, especially in and out of London, east/west isn't, especially across Lancashire and Yorkshire. The idea that HS2 was essential for these other things to happen is nonsense. How do you upgrade the existing tracks then, I'm generally interested to know? How do you put new lines in without digging up green fields next to the existing lines, how do you expand the lines through major conurbations, imagine widening the lines through Stoke on Trent, the disruption to existing train times, the disruption to the local area, the bridges, the nearby roads and buildings having to be demolished, rebuilt, then all the other towns and cities etc. etc. how would that be achieved at less cost than building HS2 ? How many of those lines closed during the Beeching era are still available and are now not public footpaths, cycle ways, public parks. Look at the Leek line, there's a supermarket where the train station used to. Locals here are on about opening a Northwich to Middlewich via Gadbrooke business park train line, this is near to where HS2 would have been going through, it will take years of planning and then bidding for the money, we'll have to wait and see if it's just a pipe dream or by then we'll all be using our own mini jet packs to get about... I agree that East/West isn't served well, but that was supposed to be getting done as part of 'The Northern Powerhouse' 'levelling up' pack of lies, this is just another kick in the teeth to add to the others. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Oct 5, 2023 15:21:09 GMT
I agree with Northy. I accept Sunak's argument that the circumstances have changed since the pandemic and war and it is no longer the over-riding priority and other needs have become more urgent and necessary. So the legs to Manchester and Leeds are for a future generation. But the idea that the old network can be upgraded is not viable. I posted this link years ago: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hs2-logistics-financial-benefit-controversy-a8937936.htmlIt is out of date now but the basic arguments for a new HS2 lines as opposed to upgrading the Victorian network are still valid, if you can get past the adverts! How fast can you go on "bendy lines"?! HS2 is essentially straight lines. The only way I could see the old network being modified to make it capable of more capacity, faster travel, and freight, through urban sections is to dig it out and make it deeper and have a double level lines. The cost and disruption would be massive. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 5, 2023 15:53:42 GMT
You upgrade the existing tracks, re-open lines that were closed in the Beaching era, double up the existing lines and upgrade the rolling stock. Where you do need to build on the green belt you do it between areas that aren't served ok by the existing infrastructure - north/south is relatively well serviced, especially in and out of London, east/west isn't, especially across Lancashire and Yorkshire. The idea that HS2 was essential for these other things to happen is nonsense. How do you upgrade the existing tracks then, I'm generally interested to know? How do you put new lines in without digging up green fields next to the existing lines, how do you expand the lines through major conurbations, imagine widening the lines through Stoke on Trent, the disruption to existing train times, the disruption to the local area, the bridges, the nearby roads and buildings having to be demolished, rebuilt, then all the other towns and cities etc. etc. how would that be achieved at less cost than building HS2 ? How many of those lines closed during the Beeching era are still available and are now not public footpaths, cycle ways, public parks. Look at the Leek line, there's a supermarket where the train station used to. Locals here are on about opening a Northwich to Middlewich via Gadbrooke business park train line, this is near to where HS2 would have been going through, it will take years of planning and then bidding for the money, we'll have to wait and see if it's just a pipe dream or by then we'll all be using our own mini jet packs to get about... I agree that East/West isn't served well, but that was supposed to be getting done as part of 'The Northern Powerhouse' 'levelling up' pack of lies, this is just another kick in the teeth to add to the others. Perfectly put. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 5, 2023 16:33:40 GMT
You upgrade the existing tracks, re-open lines that were closed in the Beaching era, double up the existing lines and upgrade the rolling stock. Where you do need to build on the green belt you do it between areas that aren't served ok by the existing infrastructure - north/south is relatively well serviced, especially in and out of London, east/west isn't, especially across Lancashire and Yorkshire. The idea that HS2 was essential for these other things to happen is nonsense. How do you upgrade the existing tracks then, I'm generally interested to know? How do you put new lines in without digging up green fields next to the existing lines, how do you expand the lines through major conurbations, imagine widening the lines through Stoke on Trent, the disruption to existing train times, the disruption to the local area, the bridges, the nearby roads and buildings having to be demolished, rebuilt, then all the other towns and cities etc. etc. how would that be achieved at less cost than building HS2 ? How many of those lines closed during the Beeching era are still available and are now not public footpaths, cycle ways, public parks. Look at the Leek line, there's a supermarket where the train station used to. Locals here are on about opening a Northwich to Middlewich via Gadbrooke business park train line, this is near to where HS2 would have been going through, it will take years of planning and then bidding for the money, we'll have to wait and see if it's just a pipe dream or by then we'll all be using our own mini jet packs to get about... I agree that East/West isn't served well, but that was supposed to be getting done as part of 'The Northern Powerhouse' 'levelling up' pack of lies, this is just another kick in the teeth to add to the others. The cost of building on land you already partly own and widening where necessary is going to cost way less than building on a completely green field site. If congestion is the issue pound for pound you are going to get more line by repurposing, renovating and resurrecting than by building from scratch. If freight is the issue HS2 isn't the answer. Freight does not need a high speed line. In part HS2 is so expensive because the engineering standards required are way higher than are needed for a standard track - for freight HS2 is massively over engineered. If you insist the routes themselves are absolutely essential (which is debatable) they could have massively cut the cost be not making it a high speed line and it would have done a perfectly adequate job for freight. |
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on Oct 5, 2023 16:34:00 GMT
I agree with Northy. I accept Sunak's argument that the circumstances have changed since the pandemic and war and it is no longer the over-riding priority and other needs have become more urgent and necessary. So the legs to Manchester and Leeds are for a future generation. But the idea that the old network can be upgraded is not viable. I posted this link years ago: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hs2-logistics-financial-benefit-controversy-a8937936.htmlIt is out of date now but the basic arguments for a new HS2 lines as opposed to upgrading the Victorian network are still valid, if you can get past the adverts! How fast can you go on "bendy lines"?! HS2 is essentially straight lines. The only way I could see the old network being modified to make it capable of more capacity, faster travel, and freight, through urban sections is to dig it out and make it deeper and have a double level lines. The cost and disruption would be massive. Our inherent problem is running mixed speed services on a single track. Our rail network chucks together long distance high speed services with 3 other types: regional medium speed services, stopping trains and slow freight. This isn't the way to do it. When trains are all travelling at the same speed you can run them nice and close but when you're not you need big gaps to leave space for the long distance trains because of their speed and acceleration. The idea behind HS2 was simple, take the long distance trains and put them on a dedicated line this then frees up space on the existing network for other trains which can then run a more efficient service. Crucially more freight. Unfortunately (I'm led to believe) the loading gauge of the new stock isn't compatible with the existing network. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 5, 2023 16:35:28 GMT
I agree with Northy. I accept Sunak's argument that the circumstances have changed since the pandemic and war and it is no longer the over-riding priority and other needs have become more urgent and necessary. So the legs to Manchester and Leeds are for a future generation. But the idea that the old network can be upgraded is not viable. I posted this link years ago: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hs2-logistics-financial-benefit-controversy-a8937936.htmlIt is out of date now but the basic arguments for a new HS2 lines as opposed to upgrading the Victorian network are still valid, if you can get past the adverts! How fast can you go on "bendy lines"?! HS2 is essentially straight lines. The only way I could see the old network being modified to make it capable of more capacity, faster travel, and freight, through urban sections is to dig it out and make it deeper and have a double level lines. The cost and disruption would be massive. You can't run high speed trains on bendy tracks. The question is whether you really need high speed trains. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 5, 2023 16:40:55 GMT
It may or may not happen. The point is at least it might happen whereas carry on with HS2 it definitely won't happen. At least a Labour government will have some money to use once the Tories are ousted and, despite my reservations about Starmer's Labour, there's a good chance they will do something constructive with it. Scrapping HS2 is the least crap of 2 crap options. And fair play to Sunak for making the call. It's not the least of 2 crap options if one of the two options is fuck all. And Sunak couldn't give a shit about what happens after he's out of power. It's a scorched earth policy designed to ensure no future government can resurrect the idea if they so wish, whilst ensuring wealthy Tory land owners get to buy back the land they sold for fraction of the price they sold it for. Tory donors will make a killing whether they scrap or continue with HS2 and if Sunak's primary motivation is a scorched earth policy for Labour he's dropped a bollock because Labour would have less money available if the project has continued. Once in power Labour would be faced with exactly the same decision, based on the same numbers and if they too put financial responsibility before politics would come to the same conclusion but with even more money down the drain. |
|
|
|
Post by superjw on Oct 5, 2023 17:13:15 GMT
The stoke to leek line begs the question who the fuck wants to go to Leek 😉 I saw that, can someone enlighten me as to the advantages of this line reopening? There isn’t really any tbh, I don’t see how the business case stacks up with just this line opening. What really frustrates me is even Stoke on Trent once had fantastic rail links including the teams we once had. Absolute peak public transportation system that would be top tier in todays city but will never happen again purely on cost alone. I’m not old enough to remember but some of the old images you can see of it all are mind blowing even just in Stoke. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 5, 2023 17:14:13 GMT
It's not the least of 2 crap options if one of the two options is fuck all. And Sunak couldn't give a shit about what happens after he's out of power. It's a scorched earth policy designed to ensure no future government can resurrect the idea if they so wish, whilst ensuring wealthy Tory land owners get to buy back the land they sold for fraction of the price they sold it for. Tory donors will make a killing whether they scrap or continue with HS2 and if Sunak's primary motivation is a scorched earth policy for Labour he's dropped a bollock because Labour would have less money available if the project has continued. Once in power Labour would be faced with exactly the same decision, based on the same numbers and if they too put financial responsibility before politics would come to the same conclusion but with even more money down the drain. The scorched earth policy is to sell back the land that was purchased (with tax payer's money) at vastly over inflated prices, to the very wealthy Tory landowners who made massive profits in the first place, so that they can now make even MORE profits when they buy it back for a fraction of the selling price, ensuring that no government in the future can ever revive the project. Sunak stands to make zero political capital out of this decision, so why doesn't he leave it to become Labour's problem in the future, rather than burning his bridges with the North today? Simply, the reason being, he knows the game is up and he knows there is no chance of them winning the election, so they might as well screw every last penny out of the tax payer, just one more time. What we have here, rather conveniently whilst Parliament isnt even sitting, is an unelected prime minister, individually overturning the biggest financial pledge the country has ever made to its people, that was given royal assent just two years ago! And you think he needs to actually be congratulated? Blimey. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Oct 5, 2023 17:22:31 GMT
I agree with Northy. I accept Sunak's argument that the circumstances have changed since the pandemic and war and it is no longer the over-riding priority and other needs have become more urgent and necessary. So the legs to Manchester and Leeds are for a future generation. But the idea that the old network can be upgraded is not viable. I posted this link years ago: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hs2-logistics-financial-benefit-controversy-a8937936.htmlIt is out of date now but the basic arguments for a new HS2 lines as opposed to upgrading the Victorian network are still valid, if you can get past the adverts! How fast can you go on "bendy lines"?! HS2 is essentially straight lines. The only way I could see the old network being modified to make it capable of more capacity, faster travel, and freight, through urban sections is to dig it out and make it deeper and have a double level lines. The cost and disruption would be massive. You can't run high speed trains on bendy tracks. The question is whether you really need high speed trains. Yes you do. There is a need for more faster trains both north - south and east - west. I've had to stand from King's Cross to Northallerton. Unfortunately the public generally want to travel during the same few hours of the day. |
|
|
|
Post by vidigal7 on Oct 5, 2023 18:10:06 GMT
Leveling down. I probably would never have used it anyway but suprise suprise the South gets it and the north doesn't. Nothing new is it
|
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Oct 5, 2023 18:38:11 GMT
Bang on. It would have cost 100 billion to finish it, think about that number - 100 billion pounds ffs, to knock 40 mins off a trip to london. A trip which fewer business people make since we all started to do remote meetings, and a trip which i used to do every month, and said from the start what would have helped was more tables and better wifi, enabling the 2 hours to be spent productivly, at a cost of a few million, a shorter journey time means less work, not more. It was going to halve the journey from Manchester to London by over an hour. What about getting the freight off the roads, what about easing capacity on the existing networks in order to get better local services, you know how shit the Chester to Manchester line is, nothing can be done because of the bottle neck at Stockport, and that goes for so many local services that run that way, opening up areas for new growth and business opportunities I agree that the costs seem to be getting out of control, but HS2 wasn't just about cutting journey times between 2 cities, 2 weeks ago I was sat on a train travelling at 250 km/h from the southern tip of Italy to Naples, their high speed line has opened up tourist areas previously very hard to get to, opened up capacity on the local lines with new rolling stock, getting people moving about creating opportunities, we look amateurish compared to the European train network And I agree we look amateurish - but spending 100 billion on a project which in other European countries would have been completed for 1/7th of that amount, doesn't give a professional impression either. 100 Billion pounds! - that's about £3,200 for each of the dwindling band of us suckers who actually pay the taxes which support the country. Our train systems are a shambles and as you say, far inferior to those we use abroad (frustratingly, especially as we invented the damn things) but spending this colossal amount on one line which wouldn't run anywhere near the speeds your quoting, isn't going to transform us into the envy of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 5, 2023 19:56:59 GMT
How do you upgrade the existing tracks then, I'm generally interested to know? How do you put new lines in without digging up green fields next to the existing lines, how do you expand the lines through major conurbations, imagine widening the lines through Stoke on Trent, the disruption to existing train times, the disruption to the local area, the bridges, the nearby roads and buildings having to be demolished, rebuilt, then all the other towns and cities etc. etc. how would that be achieved at less cost than building HS2 ? How many of those lines closed during the Beeching era are still available and are now not public footpaths, cycle ways, public parks. Look at the Leek line, there's a supermarket where the train station used to. Locals here are on about opening a Northwich to Middlewich via Gadbrooke business park train line, this is near to where HS2 would have been going through, it will take years of planning and then bidding for the money, we'll have to wait and see if it's just a pipe dream or by then we'll all be using our own mini jet packs to get about... I agree that East/West isn't served well, but that was supposed to be getting done as part of 'The Northern Powerhouse' 'levelling up' pack of lies, this is just another kick in the teeth to add to the others. The cost of building on land you already partly own and widening where necessary is going to cost way less than building on a completely green field site. If congestion is the issue pound for pound you are going to get more line by repurposing, renovating and resurrecting than by building from scratch. If freight is the issue HS2 isn't the answer. Freight does not need a high speed line. In part HS2 is so expensive because the engineering standards required are way higher than are needed for a standard track - for freight HS2 is massively over engineered. If you insist the routes themselves are absolutely essential (which is debatable) they could have massively cut the cost be not making it a high speed line and it would have done a perfectly adequate job for freight. Most land isn't owned by railways, or the government, its owned by farmers up to the fences. The freight was to go on the existing lines that was free of capacity that HS2 was freeing up. Anyone dealing in large projects will know its easier and cheaper to build new rather than try and rebuild against old. |
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Oct 5, 2023 20:19:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 5, 2023 21:51:52 GMT
The cost of building on land you already partly own and widening where necessary is going to cost way less than building on a completely green field site. If congestion is the issue pound for pound you are going to get more line by repurposing, renovating and resurrecting than by building from scratch. If freight is the issue HS2 isn't the answer. Freight does not need a high speed line. In part HS2 is so expensive because the engineering standards required are way higher than are needed for a standard track - for freight HS2 is massively over engineered. If you insist the routes themselves are absolutely essential (which is debatable) they could have massively cut the cost be not making it a high speed line and it would have done a perfectly adequate job for freight. Most land isn't owned by railways, or the government, its owned by farmers up to the fences. The freight was to go on the existing lines that was free of capacity that HS2 was freeing up. Anyone dealing in large projects will know its easier and cheaper to build new rather than try and rebuild against old. Well this article ( www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10423790/Upgrading-existing-rail-network-would-be-better-value-than-HS2-government-analysis-finds.html) from 2013 (way before HS2 costs got out of hand) seems to suggest the opposite - that upgrading the existing infrastructure would result in a much higher payback than HS2 - and this was buried in a government report analysing the relative costs. The government knew it was the best value option when they commissioned it. It was a vanity project from the outset. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 5, 2023 21:52:59 GMT
Cancelling it shows what a second rate shite country we are.
Absolutely pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 5, 2023 21:59:19 GMT
Tory donors will make a killing whether they scrap or continue with HS2 and if Sunak's primary motivation is a scorched earth policy for Labour he's dropped a bollock because Labour would have less money available if the project has continued. Once in power Labour would be faced with exactly the same decision, based on the same numbers and if they too put financial responsibility before politics would come to the same conclusion but with even more money down the drain. The scorched earth policy is to sell back the land that was purchased (with tax payer's money) at vastly over inflated prices, to the very wealthy Tory landowners who made massive profits in the first place, so that they can now make even MORE profits when they buy it back for a fraction of the selling price, ensuring that no government in the future can ever revive the project. Sunak stands to make zero political capital out of this decision, so why doesn't he leave it to become Labour's problem in the future, rather than burning his bridges with the North today? Simply, the reason being, he knows the game is up and he knows there is no chance of them winning the election, so they might as well screw every last penny out of the tax payer, just one more time. What we have here, rather conveniently whilst Parliament isnt even sitting, is an unelected prime minister, individually overturning the biggest financial pledge the country has ever made to its people, that was given royal assent just two years ago! And you think he needs to actually be congratulated? Blimey. The Tories were never going to level up the North - that's a given. Sunak is just the fall guy finally admitting that yet another Boris Johnson lie was in fact another Boris Johnson lie. After Johnson and Truss the Tories actually have a couple of adults in charge in Sunak and Hunt making sound financial decisions after years of mismanagement. I want the Tories out but you are just political point scoring here - the pair of them are making the right decision for the right reason and credit to them. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 5, 2023 22:03:41 GMT
The scorched earth policy is to sell back the land that was purchased (with tax payer's money) at vastly over inflated prices, to the very wealthy Tory landowners who made massive profits in the first place, so that they can now make even MORE profits when they buy it back for a fraction of the selling price, ensuring that no government in the future can ever revive the project. Sunak stands to make zero political capital out of this decision, so why doesn't he leave it to become Labour's problem in the future, rather than burning his bridges with the North today? Simply, the reason being, he knows the game is up and he knows there is no chance of them winning the election, so they might as well screw every last penny out of the tax payer, just one more time. What we have here, rather conveniently whilst Parliament isnt even sitting, is an unelected prime minister, individually overturning the biggest financial pledge the country has ever made to its people, that was given royal assent just two years ago! And you think he needs to actually be congratulated? Blimey. The Tories were never going to level up the North - that's a given. Sunak is just the fall guy finally admitting that yet another Boris Johnson lie was in fact another Boris Johnson lie. After Johnson and Truss the Tories actually have a couple of adults in charge in Sunak and Hunt making sound financial decisions after years of mismanagement. I want the Tories out but you are just political point scoring here - the pair of them are making the right decision for the right reason and credit to them. Give over. It's part of a series of decision that don't sit in reality around climate change and connecting the country. It's totally backwards and is another bad look for a country that is meant to be at the forefront of the world but can't even build a high speed railway. It's pathetic. And then you have the lies saddled in their about the money being used. A lot of it is stuff that's already been planned anyway. And then you have the stuff like the Leek line that just won't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by mrnovember on Oct 5, 2023 22:08:12 GMT
Was shaving 50 mins from the journey from Manchester to London really ever worth it in the first place? The payback on this project was always tenuous. Having said that, stopping at Brum is even more fucking pointless. Idiots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 5, 2023 22:12:58 GMT
The scorched earth policy is to sell back the land that was purchased (with tax payer's money) at vastly over inflated prices, to the very wealthy Tory landowners who made massive profits in the first place, so that they can now make even MORE profits when they buy it back for a fraction of the selling price, ensuring that no government in the future can ever revive the project. Sunak stands to make zero political capital out of this decision, so why doesn't he leave it to become Labour's problem in the future, rather than burning his bridges with the North today? Simply, the reason being, he knows the game is up and he knows there is no chance of them winning the election, so they might as well screw every last penny out of the tax payer, just one more time. What we have here, rather conveniently whilst Parliament isnt even sitting, is an unelected prime minister, individually overturning the biggest financial pledge the country has ever made to its people, that was given royal assent just two years ago! And you think he needs to actually be congratulated? Blimey. The Tories were never going to level up the North - that's a given. Sunak is just the fall guy finally admitting that yet another Boris Johnson lie was in fact another Boris Johnson lie. After Johnson and Truss the Tories actually have a couple of adults in charge in Sunak and Hunt making sound financial decisions after years of mismanagement. I want the Tories out but you are just political point scoring here - the pair of them are making the right decision for the right reason and credit to them. Political point scoring? Jesus wept, this is about as political a discussion as you can get. And yes you're right, the Tories were never going to level up the North, that's why it makes it so surprising that you were exalting plans for a redistribution of funds to other infracturce plans for the North, yesterday. They've already started rowing back on promises they announced just 24 hours ago FFS. They don't deserve any credit whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 5, 2023 22:29:32 GMT
The Tories were never going to level up the North - that's a given. Sunak is just the fall guy finally admitting that yet another Boris Johnson lie was in fact another Boris Johnson lie. After Johnson and Truss the Tories actually have a couple of adults in charge in Sunak and Hunt making sound financial decisions after years of mismanagement. I want the Tories out but you are just political point scoring here - the pair of them are making the right decision for the right reason and credit to them. Political point scoring? Jesus wept, this is about as political a discussion as you can get. And yes you're right, the Tories were never going to level up the North, that's why it makes it so surprising that you were exalting plans for a redistribution of funds to other infracturce plans for the North, yesterday. They've already started rowing back on promises they announced just 24 hours ago FFS. They don't deserve any credit whatsoever. I think he means if Labour get in they will spend some money in the North. How I read it anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Oct 5, 2023 22:32:29 GMT
The UK seems to have a big problem with delivering any large scale project on time and budget. Absolutely everything seems to get bogged down with consultations, legal challenges etc. which inevitably run at an absolute snails pace and rumble on for years. HS2 was a good idea, particularly with regards capacity but has been very poorly managed - too much tunnelling to appease local interests (i.e. rural voters) and crazy schemes like bat tunnels etc seemingly without a care in the world about the cost of such things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 5, 2023 22:38:56 GMT
Political point scoring? Jesus wept, this is about as political a discussion as you can get. And yes you're right, the Tories were never going to level up the North, that's why it makes it so surprising that you were exalting plans for a redistribution of funds to other infracturce plans for the North, yesterday. They've already started rowing back on promises they announced just 24 hours ago FFS. They don't deserve any credit whatsoever. I think he means if Labour get in they will spend some money in the North. How I read it anyway. They are putting the money directly into the hoped for spin offs because they will generate more value per pound invested. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 5, 2023 22:43:35 GMT
I think he means if Labour get in they will spend some money in the North. How I read it anyway. They are putting the money directly into the hoped for spin offs because they will generate more value per pound invested. I've not read the whole thread so don't get the reference. I'll butt out 😆 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 5, 2023 22:50:48 GMT
Was shaving 50 mins from the journey from Manchester to London really ever worth it in the first place? The payback on this project was always tenuous. Having said that, stopping at Brum is even more fucking pointless. Idiots. 50 minutes is a pretty long time tbf. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 5, 2023 22:55:55 GMT
The scorched earth policy is to sell back the land that was purchased (with tax payer's money) at vastly over inflated prices, to the very wealthy Tory landowners who made massive profits in the first place, so that they can now make even MORE profits when they buy it back for a fraction of the selling price, ensuring that no government in the future can ever revive the project. Sunak stands to make zero political capital out of this decision, so why doesn't he leave it to become Labour's problem in the future, rather than burning his bridges with the North today? Simply, the reason being, he knows the game is up and he knows there is no chance of them winning the election, so they might as well screw every last penny out of the tax payer, just one more time. What we have here, rather conveniently whilst Parliament isnt even sitting, is an unelected prime minister, individually overturning the biggest financial pledge the country has ever made to its people, that was given royal assent just two years ago! And you think he needs to actually be congratulated? Blimey. The Tories were never going to level up the North - that's a given. Sunak is just the fall guy finally admitting that yet another Boris Johnson lie was in fact another Boris Johnson lie. After Johnson and Truss the Tories actually have a couple of adults in charge in Sunak and Hunt making sound financial decisions after years of mismanagement. I want the Tories out but you are just political point scoring here - the pair of them are making the right decision for the right reason and credit to them. If the Tories had no intention of levelling up, which I agree they didn't, then Rishi was the Chancellor during this charade so the least you could accuse him of is of being deceitful After the chaos of Johnston and Truss, Rishi presented himself as the person who would steady the ship. Unfortunately for him this made no inroads into the Labour lead over Conservatives in the Polls His latest "pitch" is to portray himself as the Candidate for change and brand Starmer as the Continuity Candidate This takes some chutzpah for a PM leading the Party who has presided for the last 13 years of total mismanagement His Action Plan is to stop the further investment of £36Bn in HS2 and divert it to other more local Rail Improvements. The first problem with this is that these Improvements were already promised The second problem is that 25% of the £36Bn specifically £8.3Bn is earmarked for fixing potholes including South of Birmingham. The remainder are just lines on a Map which if you have confidence will be even get started under this administration I may have a Bridge you may be interested in. Drip, drip today as details emerge it will terminate at Wormwood Scrubs unless Private Investment funds the link to Euston He also trashed every previous PM including the 4 previous Conservative ones who were mostly elected rather than appointed all the way back to Thatcher who he claimed he was the reincarnation of, give me a break.His main reasoning being that those 4 had lied, even Trump wouldn't try and pull off this stunt. The remainder of his speech consisted of reforming the Curriculum in 2033, a Smoking Ban which wouldn't be fully implemented until 2032 and a few Woke jibes. Brexit Opportunities were notably absent from Rishi speech, in fact it wasn't mentioned at all. If this is a Man of Change with the vision to lead us forward for the next 6 years Gawd help us. |
|
|
|
Post by mrnovember on Oct 5, 2023 22:56:55 GMT
Was shaving 50 mins from the journey from Manchester to London really ever worth it in the first place? The payback on this project was always tenuous. Having said that, stopping at Brum is even more fucking pointless. Idiots. 50 minutes is a pretty long time tbf. it's not an economic barrier though. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 5, 2023 22:58:50 GMT
50 minutes is a pretty long time tbf. it's not an economic barrier though. The freeing up the lines for more cargo and improved local services would help. Also environmentally it’s massive. More train use has to be encouraged to drive down car journeys. |
|
