Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » HS2 might be hated by Tory activists but scrapping it could le

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited August 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » HS2 might be hated by Tory activists but scrapping it could lead the party to being portrayed as being anti-north

Wikipedia

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • As Alasdair Darling was pointing out yesterday, you don't invest in tbe North by making it slightly easier to get to London. You do it by improving transport links in the North. HS2 sounds like a vanity project because that is exactly what it is. There are far better ways to spend £90 billion which will be far more fruitful for the North of England. A view that is not just limited to Tory activists.
  • Oh and first...
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    Too many vested interests have got their fingers in the HS2 pie.
    I know 3 people working on it in central london..none of them engineers all on salaries in excess of £100k for doing duddly squat. The money is out of control
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited August 2019
    If HS2 is to be sacrificed (for what?) then what of HS3 to improve transport links in the frozen north as part of Osborne's Northern Powerhouse? Improved logistics and commuting can easily be given a free market, free enterprise, blue rinse by Boris.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27969885
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    So, spend money improving rail links in the north. It's not rocket science.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    Good morning, everyone.

    So, spend money improving rail links in the north. It's not rocket science.

    Quite.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    Wildly O/t, but I hope Ydoethr's students get good results today.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    London has had Crossrail and is getting Crossrail 2. It is supposedly getting the Heathrow extension as well. We need more focus on transport infrastructure that is not London centric improving connectivity between other parts of the country. The most obvious is between the east and west coasts in the north. London has ensured our major lines are the west and east coast mainlines connecting rUK to it. Linking Newcastle, Sheffield, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool with high volume, high quality lines would be a start.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    Wildly O/t, but I hope Ydoethr's students get good results today.

    Would he not have found out yesterday? In Scotland the schools are given the results (and more exact results) the day before the dreaded envelopes arrive. We got our results about 2 weeks ago now and my son is back at school already.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,227
    edited August 2019

    As Alasdair Darling was pointing out yesterday, you don't invest in tbe North by making it slightly easier to get to London. You do it by improving transport links in the North. HS2 sounds like a vanity project because that is exactly what it is. There are far better ways to spend £90 billion which will be far more fruitful for the North of England. A view that is not just limited to Tory activists.

    Well done, Richard. I heard Lord Darling too and what you say is perfectly correct.

    You saved me the need to post.
  • As Alasdair Darling was pointing out yesterday, you don't invest in tbe North by making it slightly easier to get to London. You do it by improving transport links in the North. HS2 sounds like a vanity project because that is exactly what it is. There are far better ways to spend £90 billion which will be far more fruitful for the North of England. A view that is not just limited to Tory activists.

    Well done, Richard. I heard Lord Darling too and what you say is perfectly correct.

    You saved me the need to post.
    and yet every single elected mayor in the north supports it.

    every single chamber of commerce in the north supports it

    almost every single elected council in the north supports it

    Darling is pretty much hated across places like Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool for cancelling their tram plans in 2004 and is himself seen as anti-north.

    But again, that would not register with southern voters as it is never ever reported in the national media.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,548

    As Alasdair Darling was pointing out yesterday, you don't invest in tbe North by making it slightly easier to get to London. You do it by improving transport links in the North. HS2 sounds like a vanity project because that is exactly what it is. There are far better ways to spend £90 billion which will be far more fruitful for the North of England. A view that is not just limited to Tory activists.

    HS2 is not a vanity project. There is a specific need to fix a looming capacity issue on the WCML. Since you and I first talked about this (I guess eight or nine years ago), passenger numbers on the railways have continued to increase, albeit with shifting patterns of usage and one year of decrease.

    If you want a vanity project - and one that will cost the country a heck of a lot more than £90 billion - just look at your beloved Brexit. ;)
  • Good morning, everyone.

    So, spend money improving rail links in the north. It's not rocket science.

    Yep.

    Including HS2.

    Ask northern business, ask northern politicians, they absolutely see HS2 as a priority despite many from further away trying to tell them it is not.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    Honestly have no idea about HS2. Instinctively I am mildly supportive but it seems impossible to find unbiased and objective viewpoints on the project.

    Now is definitely the time for investing in infrastructure, but is this the right project?
  • Oh and the price is £56bn at latest estimate.

    With a leaked report saying it could rise to £71bn - £86bn.

    Not the figures that some seem to pluck out of the air to make the scheme seem more expensive than reality.

    And yes, mayors of the north would spend that money on HS2 given the chance, they have repeatedly stated as such, as Burnham did yesterday.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    DavidL said:

    London has had Crossrail and is getting Crossrail 2. It is supposedly getting the Heathrow extension as well. We need more focus on transport infrastructure that is not London centric improving connectivity between other parts of the country. The most obvious is between the east and west coasts in the north. London has ensured our major lines are the west and east coast mainlines connecting rUK to it. Linking Newcastle, Sheffield, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool with high volume, high quality lines would be a start.

    Are those the lines built in the 1840s that led to the industrial revolution taking full effect nationwide, and to the greatest Empire the world had ever seen?

    Those mainlines?

    Dastardly London.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861

    Endillion said:

    Scott_P said:
    She's changed her position. She's said she's willing to discuss alternatives to the backstop. What more do you think Johnson wants at this point?
    Is she seated due to her recent wobbliness?
    What an arse. We’ll see how you cope with being old.
    I'm not being an arse, I like Angela Merkel, think she's a fine stateswoman, and wish her abundant health and a long and active political life. However, her health is a subject of interest, and the choice to be seated is potentially an indication she's not back up to full strength.
    There are very many politicians who workr well despite some kind of ill health or disability.

    For all we know the official line is right, that her first shaking occurred under testing conditions, standing to attention in formal clothing in the sun on a searingly hit day. The following incidents have been caused by a fear of the same thing happening when standing to attention to a national anthem.

    If this is the case then it hardly brings into question her ability to be the Chancellor.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    It appears the ONS has been underestimating EU migration for a decade or so: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49420730 What a surprise. This analysis goes to 2016. Will we find the alleged fall in EU migration post that date was also wrong?

    To bring this back to topic it is yet another example of the very poor quality of statistical information available in this country when policy, such as transport, infrastructure and housing are discussed. Our political class being incompetent is a given but even the most competent cannot make good decisions without good information.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    rkrkrk said:

    Honestly have no idea about HS2. Instinctively I am mildly supportive but it seems impossible to find unbiased and objective viewpoints on the project.

    Now is definitely the time for investing in infrastructure, but is this the right project?

    Yes, HS2 is already unlocking a large amount of business and residential investment in Birmingham, which is why the West Midlands Council is so desperate for it.

    The North needs both it *and* better regional transverse links. But, without the former, it won’t aid global connectivity and regeneration.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,548
    edited August 2019

    Good morning, everyone.

    So, spend money improving rail links in the north. It's not rocket science.

    They are spending money improving rail links in the north - and are planning to spend more. And why the north? Why not the southwest? Scotland?

    One of the funny things about yesterdays announcement was the way so many antis wanted the money spending in *their* area. What amuses me is that they honestly seem to believe that if HS2 is cancelled, that money will go to them instead of other politically less fraught areas. Cancelling HS2 will burn politicians' fingers enough for the to avoid such grand projects in the future. IMO that's bad for the country.

    (For an idea on rail investment, Network Rail are spending £10 billion (minimum) on enhancements in CP6 (2019-24).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    Good morning, everyone.

    So, spend money improving rail links in the north. It's not rocket science.

    Yep.

    Including HS2.

    Ask northern business, ask northern politicians, they absolutely see HS2 as a priority despite many from further away trying to tell them it is not.

    Yep.

    Being anti HS2 is the most southern thing there is.
  • another observation

    to some manifesto commitments, on things like Brexit are sacrosanct, yet commitments on things like HS2 should be dropped, even if almost the entire population voted for parties that support the scheme.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    As Alasdair Darling was pointing out yesterday, you don't invest in tbe North by making it slightly easier to get to London. You do it by improving transport links in the North. HS2 sounds like a vanity project because that is exactly what it is. There are far better ways to spend £90 billion which will be far more fruitful for the North of England. A view that is not just limited to Tory activists.

    Well done, Richard. I heard Lord Darling too and what you say is perfectly correct.

    You saved me the need to post.
    and yet every single elected mayor in the north supports it.

    every single chamber of commerce in the north supports it

    almost every single elected council in the north supports it

    Darling is pretty much hated across places like Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool for cancelling their tram plans in 2004 and is himself seen as anti-north.

    But again, that would not register with southern voters as it is never ever reported in the national media.
    No one down hear every hears about anything north of the Watford Gap. Cambridge and Oxford is about as ambitious as it gets.

    Very, very occasionally Birmingham creeps into the news. Never anything further north than that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Thanks OKC. I've given up trying to make sense of exam results though. I maintained my 100% pass rate at A-level - including one student I thought was certain to fail somehow got a C - but GCSEs we're still groping following major changes. Not, having seen the muddle the chief examiner for AQA is making, that A-levels are more rigorous right now.
    DavidL said:

    Wildly O/t, but I hope Ydoethr's students get good results today.

    Would he not have found out yesterday? In Scotland the schools are given the results (and more exact results) the day before the dreaded envelopes arrive. We got our results about 2 weeks ago now and my son is back at school already.
    The school gets them a day early. I don't. I've probably just had an email but I prefer to go in to school to get them so I haven't checked.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    As Alasdair Darling was pointing out yesterday, you don't invest in tbe North by making it slightly easier to get to London. You do it by improving transport links in the North. HS2 sounds like a vanity project because that is exactly what it is. There are far better ways to spend £90 billion which will be far more fruitful for the North of England. A view that is not just limited to Tory activists.

    Well done, Richard. I heard Lord Darling too and what you say is perfectly correct.

    You saved me the need to post.
    and yet every single elected mayor in the north supports it.

    every single chamber of commerce in the north supports it

    almost every single elected council in the north supports it

    Darling is pretty much hated across places like Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool for cancelling their tram plans in 2004 and is himself seen as anti-north.

    But again, that would not register with southern voters as it is never ever reported in the national media.
    No one down hear every hears about anything north of the Watford Gap. Cambridge and Oxford is about as ambitious as it gets.

    Very, very occasionally Birmingham creeps into the news. Never anything further north than that.
    Manchester is in the news more frequently than Birmingham.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    On the paradox of High Speed Rail driving low cost airlines:

    https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-not-sustainable.html

    In a small country like ours, conventional express trains are fast enough, cheaper, and more environmentally sound. Build new lines please, but make them affordable, and support branch services rather than make them wither on the vine.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited August 2019
    rkrkrk said:

    Honestly have no idea about HS2. Instinctively I am mildly supportive but it seems impossible to find unbiased and objective viewpoints on the project.

    Now is definitely the time for investing in infrastructure, but is this the right project?

    Yes. For all the reasons @JosiasJessop and I have repeated over many months.

    That doesn't mean there aren't many other projects all around the country that don't also need big money.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    Oh and the price is £56bn at latest estimate.

    With a leaked report saying it could rise to £71bn - £86bn.

    Not the figures that some seem to pluck out of the air to make the scheme seem more expensive than reality.

    And yes, mayors of the north would spend that money on HS2 given the chance, they have repeatedly stated as such, as Burnham did yesterday.

    Burnham's support for HS2, and Birmingham's, are factors that should be taken into account.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,096
    Boris stops vanity project

    is not a headline I ever expect to see.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    Good morning, everyone.

    So, spend money improving rail links in the north. It's not rocket science.

    They are spending money improving rail links in the north - and are planning to spend more. And why the north? Why not the southwest? Scotland?

    One of the funny things about yesterdays announcement was the way so many antis wanted the money spending in *their* area. What amuses me is that they honestly seem to believe that if HS2 is cancelled, that money will go to them instead of other politically less fraught areas. Cancelling HS2 will burn politicians' fingers enough for the to avoid such grand projects in the future. IMO that's bad for the country.

    (For an idea on rail investment, Network Rail are spending £10 billion (minimum) on enhancements in CP6 (2019-24).
    If HS2 is cancelled the money will go back to the Treasury and be used instead to make additional spending commitments on things like the NHS, social care, and education.

    Very little of it will find its way into transport infrastructure.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I travel on trains a lot and I’m unconvinced by HS2. The chief merit of the idea to me seems to be that Birmingham would effectively become a major new suburb of London, which would boost London’s capacity to drive the economy.

    I don’t see any merit to the Manchester limb. Better WiFi would make a bigger difference to business commuters.

    The north has bigger problems than just infrastructure. Large parts of it need to urgently rethink what they offer in the modern world. Whizzy trains aren’t going to answer that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    Oh and the price is £56bn at latest estimate.

    With a leaked report saying it could rise to £71bn - £86bn.

    Not the figures that some seem to pluck out of the air to make the scheme seem more expensive than reality.

    And yes, mayors of the north would spend that money on HS2 given the chance, they have repeatedly stated as such, as Burnham did yesterday.

    There is an interesting breakdown of the views of this new commission here (by a staunch HS2 supporter).

    https://paulbigland.blog/2019/08/21/the-oakervee-hs2-review-panels-announced-heres-a-look-and-some-thoughts/

    It splits about 5-3 in favour of HS2, although he also stresses some on both sides tend to take nuanced views.

    The key thing is that Andy Street is on there. If the review doesn't support HS2, he will absolutely crucify the government.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    ydoethur said:

    Thanks OKC. I've given up trying to make sense of exam results though. I maintained my 100% pass rate at A-level - including one student I thought was certain to fail somehow got a C - but GCSEs we're still groping following major changes. Not, having seen the muddle the chief examiner for AQA is making, that A-levels are more rigorous right now.

    DavidL said:

    Wildly O/t, but I hope Ydoethr's students get good results today.

    Would he not have found out yesterday? In Scotland the schools are given the results (and more exact results) the day before the dreaded envelopes arrive. We got our results about 2 weeks ago now and my son is back at school already.
    The school gets them a day early. I don't. I've probably just had an email but I prefer to go in to school to get them so I haven't checked.
    The staff at my son's school were all in the day before the results came out and then again on the day so that any disasters/ change of timetables/possible appeals could be sorted out. But we were already at the end of the holidays so it was probably in service too.

    Anyway, all the best today. 100% pass at A level is very impressive.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Floater said:

    Drutt said:

    A flawless victory in the no-deal blame game for both Boris and Merkel: BLAME THE FRENCH.
    Something most right minded people around the world can live with.
    And something very easy to do here. Barnier demanded too much from the UK and now Macron is refusing to compromise even slightly. I don't see how No Deal is avoided at this point.
    Both Barnier and Macron are French of course and the French vetoed our entry in the first place under De Gaulle.

    The French being a Catholic and Latin people have always considered us a Protestant Anglo Saxon nation with more in common with the USA and the Anglosphere than continental Europe. Germany of course being a fellow Protestant Anglo Saxon nation has always been more supportive of our EU membership
    Germany is a Protestant nation? Bayern says hello.
    When Germany was first created by Bismarck in 1871 it was 2/3 Protestant and 1/3 Catholic and even then Bavaria was majority Catholic so that does not change the point
    This depends on what you mean by a "Catholic" or "Protestant" nation. Since 1871 Germany has allowed both denominations to co-exist* and could not be considered either a "Catholic" or a "Protestant" "Nation". If you are talking about the which proportion is the larger then yes Germany is Protestant, in the same way that the UK is a "Marmite Loving Nation"

    There is one exception to the above and that is Bavaria. Bavaria is so big and so predomiantly catholic in everyday life and also in politics, hence the CSU instead of the CDU there, that it is hard to conclude that Bavaria is not a "Catholic State"


    *in DDR Germany the Church was discriminated against, but Catholic and Protestant to equal measure.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Foxy said:

    On the paradox of High Speed Rail driving low cost airlines:

    https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-not-sustainable.html

    In a small country like ours, conventional express trains are fast enough, cheaper, and more environmentally sound. Build new lines please, but make them affordable, and support branch services rather than make them wither on the vine.

    But that's the point being missed. HS2 frees up enormous capacity for local services on mianlines which means that branch lines can have better services.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    As Alasdair Darling was pointing out yesterday, you don't invest in tbe North by making it slightly easier to get to London. You do it by improving transport links in the North. HS2 sounds like a vanity project because that is exactly what it is. There are far better ways to spend £90 billion which will be far more fruitful for the North of England. A view that is not just limited to Tory activists.

    Well done, Richard. I heard Lord Darling too and what you say is perfectly correct.

    You saved me the need to post.
    and yet every single elected mayor in the north supports it.

    every single chamber of commerce in the north supports it

    almost every single elected council in the north supports it

    Darling is pretty much hated across places like Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool for cancelling their tram plans in 2004 and is himself seen as anti-north.

    But again, that would not register with southern voters as it is never ever reported in the national media.
    No one down hear every hears about anything north of the Watford Gap. Cambridge and Oxford is about as ambitious as it gets.

    Very, very occasionally Birmingham creeps into the news. Never anything further north than that.
    I haven't heard anything positive about HS2 in Leicester. Maybe we are not Northern enough, or maybe it is just because it passed through Leics without stopping.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,964
    How are those HS2 costs looking now, Lord Adonis? The total proect cost then is looking like the latest potential overspend.

    (And I am not anti-HS2. But I am anti costings for large projects that invariably bear no recognition to the stated costs on day one. We always see it. We are supposed to just accept that the people who did the initial costings were just muppets. I come from an industry where we build small cities in the harshest weather conditions in the world, expected to withstand the 100-year wave and with enough onboard generating capacity to power Edinburgh (or push a column of oil hundreds of miles uphill to shore). Even a 10% cost overrun on such projects would risk the joint venture changing operator. Now, if they can get the costsings on such an astonishing piece of construction pretty much spot on from day one, why should the public have to accept costings so wide of the mark? Well, we know why - they would never have allowed politicians to spend £80 billion on a slighlty better train set if the true number was known, is why. It's all part of the dishonesty in our political set up.)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8561286.stm

    "Lord Adonis said the project would create 10,000 jobs and yield £2 in benefits for every £1 spent.

    He said the first 120 miles between London and the West Midlands would cost between £15.8bn and £17.4bn.

    The cost per mile beyond Birmingham is then estimated to halve, taking the overall cost of the 335 mile Y-shaped network to about £30bn."
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    On infrastructure, the various councils responsible for north Essex have unveiled reheated plans for new garden communities. As part of this, they intend to introduce what they describe as a Mass Rapid Transit system.

    You have to look very hard to find out that this comprises just buses.
  • DavidL said:

    Oh and the price is £56bn at latest estimate.

    With a leaked report saying it could rise to £71bn - £86bn.

    Not the figures that some seem to pluck out of the air to make the scheme seem more expensive than reality.

    And yes, mayors of the north would spend that money on HS2 given the chance, they have repeatedly stated as such, as Burnham did yesterday.

    Burnham's support for HS2, and Birmingham's, are factors that should be taken into account.
    and Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Hull, Liverpool, Warrington, Preston.....
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    On the paradox of High Speed Rail driving low cost airlines:

    https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-not-sustainable.html

    In a small country like ours, conventional express trains are fast enough, cheaper, and more environmentally sound. Build new lines please, but make them affordable, and support branch services rather than make them wither on the vine.

    But that's the point being missed. HS2 frees up enormous capacity for local services on mianlines which means that branch lines can have better services.
    That is not the experience in Europe according to the article, with smaller lines neglected.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    FPT

    FF43 said:

    Anyway, I don't think Merkel does think a solution can be found in 30 days. I think what she meant is that she is agnostic about the backstop. I believe she said the backstop isn't up to her, negotiations would be run as a common approach through the EU and it has to work for Ireland.

    Fwiw, I think, that she thinks, that basically the only solution is the one already on the table.
    Even after a reformulation (after another extension) the effect of the legal mechanics needs to be the same, i.e. allowing Ireland at the same time an open border with NI and the rest of the EU.

    I think she herself would favour a solution that has been proposed by HUYFD, I believe, NI referendum on the backstop and bribing the DUP to complain about the border in the Irish Sea a little less loudly.

    But I doubt that she will want to play a visibly active role. Her last significant intervention in the process occurred when Elmar Brook succeeded in persuading her to trust Mrs. May's reassurances, that the widening of the backstop to all of the UK would enable her to outmanoeuvre the DUP.
    Having promoted a positive response to Mrs. May's request among her peers, the subsequent failure of Mrs. May to effectively "sell" it as the valuable, generous and significant concession that it was to her domestic audience, made Mrs. Merkel's use of influence appear in hindsight as an unfortunate misallocation of political capital.

    I think she will be reluctant to invest too much in Mr. Johnson.
    Merkel's red lines are the protection of the Single Market first and foremost, a common EU approach to negotiation and something that works for Ireland last. While the backstop isn't a red line for Merkel she will support Ireland through the EU common approach. The Irish border has implications for the Single Market, which is what she really cares about. And although not mentioned, I believe, so does cross Channel trade.

    It wasn't really an offer to Johnson.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,096
    ydoethur said:

    Oh and the price is £56bn at latest estimate.

    With a leaked report saying it could rise to £71bn - £86bn.

    Not the figures that some seem to pluck out of the air to make the scheme seem more expensive than reality.

    And yes, mayors of the north would spend that money on HS2 given the chance, they have repeatedly stated as such, as Burnham did yesterday.

    There is an interesting breakdown of the views of this new commission here (by a staunch HS2 supporter).

    https://paulbigland.blog/2019/08/21/the-oakervee-hs2-review-panels-announced-heres-a-look-and-some-thoughts/

    It splits about 5-3 in favour of HS2, although he also stresses some on both sides tend to take nuanced views.

    The key thing is that Andy Street is on there. If the review doesn't support HS2, he will absolutely crucify the government.
    The object of the review is quite obviously to support HS2. After the election, of course.

    Bozo’s strategy of taking his party members for mugs is working so well on Brexit, he is rolling it out elsewhere.
  • Out of interest.

    Those that opposed HS2, do they support £100bn[sic] actually being given to northern cities to spend how they so choose, including on HS2 if they wish?

    Or, as I suspect, would that also be opposed as throwing money down the drain when it should go to schools, NHS, Crossrail 4 etc....
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,548
    DavidL said:

    London has had Crossrail and is getting Crossrail 2. It is supposedly getting the Heathrow extension as well. We need more focus on transport infrastructure that is not London centric improving connectivity between other parts of the country. The most obvious is between the east and west coasts in the north. London has ensured our major lines are the west and east coast mainlines connecting rUK to it. Linking Newcastle, Sheffield, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool with high volume, high quality lines would be a start.

    I agree (and have argued) that there needs to be better links west-east between Liverpool and Hull, with a core between Manchester and Leeds.

    That's fair enough. But then come the hard questions (which will hopefully be answered by the people looking into NPR/HS3) :
    *) Where does it serve?
    *) What traffic patterns will it create?
    *) What is its core purpose? To relieve current need and/or to promote growth?
    *) What type of line? (Passenger only, mixed passenger/freight, high-speed etc)
    *) What benefits do you want it to create?

    The former of these is a biggie for me. Looking at a map of the north's conurbations, it's difficult to see how *one* line could realistically serve even a fraction of the large ones sensibly. It might therefore end up more l ike Crossrail, with services from various places west and east converging on a central core section. The core section might be new-build, the branches upgrades of existing routes.

    It'll be interesting to see what is proposed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Floater said:

    Drutt said:

    A flawless victory in the no-deal blame game for both Boris and Merkel: BLAME THE FRENCH.
    Something most right minded people around the world can live with.
    And something very easy to do here. Barnier demanded too much from the UK and now Macron is refusing to compromise even slightly. I don't see how No Deal is avoided at this point.
    Both Barnier and Macron are French of course and the French vetoed our entry in the first place under De Gaulle.

    The French being a Catholic and Latin people have always considered us a Protestant Anglo Saxon nation with more in common with the USA and the Anglosphere than continental Europe. Germany of course being a fellow Protestant Anglo Saxon nation has always been more supportive of our EU membership
    Germany is a Protestant nation? Bayern says hello.
    When Germany was first created by Bismarck in 1871 it was 2/3 Protestant and 1/3 Catholic and even then Bavaria was majority Catholic so that does not change the point
    This depends on what you mean by a "Catholic" or "Protestant" nation. Since 1871 Germany has allowed both denominations to co-exist* and could not be considered either a "Catholic" or a "Protestant" "Nation". If you are talking about the which proportion is the larger then yes Germany is Protestant, in the same way that the UK is a "Marmite Loving Nation"

    There is one exception to the above and that is Bavaria. Bavaria is so big and so predomiantly catholic in everyday life and also in politics, hence the CSU instead of the CDU there, that it is hard to conclude that Bavaria is not a "Catholic State"


    *in DDR Germany the Church was discriminated against, but Catholic and Protestant to equal measure.
    I think 'coexistence' is to put it mildly an optimistic view of church policy under Bismarck (the Kulturkampf) and the Nazis.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Anti North is bollocks.. anti wasting 56 billion makes sense.. It was Cameron's folly.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    On the paradox of High Speed Rail driving low cost airlines:

    https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-not-sustainable.html

    In a small country like ours, conventional express trains are fast enough, cheaper, and more environmentally sound. Build new lines please, but make them affordable, and support branch services rather than make them wither on the vine.

    But that's the point being missed. HS2 frees up enormous capacity for local services on mianlines which means that branch lines can have better services.
    That is not the experience in Europe according to the article, with smaller lines neglected.
    It’s a worthwhile point though. Right now there are useful regional services that TOCs would like to run but which can’t be timetabled because there isn’t even the capacity to cross the WCML on the level.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    FF43 said:

    FPT

    FF43 said:

    Anyway, I don't think Merkel does think a solution can be found in 30 days. I think what she meant is that she is agnostic about the backstop. I believe she said the backstop isn't up to her, negotiations would be run as a common approach through the EU and it has to work for Ireland.

    Fwiw, I think, that she thinks, that basically the only solution is the one already on the table.
    Even after a reformulation (after another extension) the effect of the legal mechanics needs to be the same, i.e. allowing Ireland at the same time an open border with NI and the rest of the EU.

    I think she herself would favour a solution that has been proposed by HUYFD, I believe, NI referendum on the backstop and bribing the DUP to complain about the border in the Irish Sea a little less loudly.

    But I doubt that she will want to play a visibly active role. Her last significant intervention in the process occurred when Elmar Brook succeeded in persuading her to trust Mrs. May's reassurances, that the widening of the backstop to all of the UK would enable her to outmanoeuvre the DUP.
    Having promoted a positive response to Mrs. May's request among her peers, the subsequent failure of Mrs. May to effectively "sell" it as the valuable, generous and significant concession that it was to her domestic audience, made Mrs. Merkel's use of influence appear in hindsight as an unfortunate misallocation of political capital.

    I think she will be reluctant to invest too much in Mr. Johnson.
    Merkel's red lines are the protection of the Single Market first and foremost, a common EU approach to negotiation and something that works for Ireland last. While the backstop isn't a red line for Merkel she will support Ireland through the EU common approach. The Irish border has implications for the Single Market, which is what she really cares about. And although not mentioned, I believe, so does cross Channel trade.

    It wasn't really an offer to Johnson.
    Angela Merkel was politely asking Boris Johnson how he proposed doing what he was asking to do. Given his track record, it’s the obvious question.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Oh and the price is £56bn at latest estimate.

    With a leaked report saying it could rise to £71bn - £86bn.

    Not the figures that some seem to pluck out of the air to make the scheme seem more expensive than reality.

    And yes, mayors of the north would spend that money on HS2 given the chance, they have repeatedly stated as such, as Burnham did yesterday.

    There is an interesting breakdown of the views of this new commission here (by a staunch HS2 supporter).

    https://paulbigland.blog/2019/08/21/the-oakervee-hs2-review-panels-announced-heres-a-look-and-some-thoughts/

    It splits about 5-3 in favour of HS2, although he also stresses some on both sides tend to take nuanced views.

    The key thing is that Andy Street is on there. If the review doesn't support HS2, he will absolutely crucify the government.
    The object of the review is quite obviously to support HS2. After the election, of course.

    Bozo’s strategy of taking his party members for mugs is working so well on Brexit, he is rolling it out elsewhere.
    And some of those mugs already think he is one of ‘the most intelligent, charismatic and effective prime ministers ever’
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    I haven't followed the HS2 story in detail but it looks too late to sensibly cancel the stretch to Birmingham. The second part may be delayed indefinitely however.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    rkrkrk said:

    Honestly have no idea about HS2. Instinctively I am mildly supportive but it seems impossible to find unbiased and objective viewpoints on the project.

    Now is definitely the time for investing in infrastructure, but is this the right project?

    Yes, HS2 is already unlocking a large amount of business and residential investment in Birmingham, which is why the West Midlands Council is so desperate for it.

    The North needs both it *and* better regional transverse links. But, without the former, it won’t aid global connectivity and regeneration.
    Thanks, I'm finding these comments informative. I didn't know there was such a consensus among Midlands and Northern politicians for the project.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    DavidL said:

    London has had Crossrail and is getting Crossrail 2. It is supposedly getting the Heathrow extension as well. We need more focus on transport infrastructure that is not London centric improving connectivity between other parts of the country. The most obvious is between the east and west coasts in the north. London has ensured our major lines are the west and east coast mainlines connecting rUK to it. Linking Newcastle, Sheffield, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool with high volume, high quality lines would be a start.

    I agree (and have argued) that there needs to be better links west-east between Liverpool and Hull, with a core between Manchester and Leeds.

    That's fair enough. But then come the hard questions (which will hopefully be answered by the people looking into NPR/HS3) :
    *) Where does it serve?
    *) What traffic patterns will it create?
    *) What is its core purpose? To relieve current need and/or to promote growth?
    *) What type of line? (Passenger only, mixed passenger/freight, high-speed etc)
    *) What benefits do you want it to create?

    The former of these is a biggie for me. Looking at a map of the north's conurbations, it's difficult to see how *one* line could realistically serve even a fraction of the large ones sensibly. It might therefore end up more l ike Crossrail, with services from various places west and east converging on a central core section. The core section might be new-build, the branches upgrades of existing routes.

    It'll be interesting to see what is proposed.
    You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,096
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Honestly have no idea about HS2. Instinctively I am mildly supportive but it seems impossible to find unbiased and objective viewpoints on the project.

    Now is definitely the time for investing in infrastructure, but is this the right project?

    Yes, HS2 is already unlocking a large amount of business and residential investment in Birmingham, which is why the West Midlands Council is so desperate for it.

    The North needs both it *and* better regional transverse links. But, without the former, it won’t aid global connectivity and regeneration.
    Thanks, I'm finding these comments informative. I didn't know there was such a consensus among Midlands and Northern politicians for the project.
    Its why Street is on the review. The M&N politicians are on a promise that it'll go ahead, and Street is its guardian. Meanwhile any southern critics who write in worried about being able to hear the trains from their croquet lawn will be told its on hold.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,548
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    On the paradox of High Speed Rail driving low cost airlines:

    https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-not-sustainable.html

    In a small country like ours, conventional express trains are fast enough, cheaper, and more environmentally sound. Build new lines please, but make them affordable, and support branch services rather than make them wither on the vine.

    But that's the point being missed. HS2 frees up enormous capacity for local services on mianlines which means that branch lines can have better services.
    That is not the experience in Europe according to the article, with smaller lines neglected.
    That has indeed been Europe's experience in part. However, in much of Europe (especially the classic TGV lines in France) the high-speed lines are separate from the traditional lines. In the case of HS2, it's much more of a connected network, with classic-compatible trains going from the north and joining the HS2 network at places like Crewe. It is important that any new or upgraded line (whether HS2, HS3, EWR, EGIP etc) are considered as part of a wider network during planning. HS2 has done this, and you can download the reports.

    Decreasing funding for other lines (as France has done) is purely a political decision.

    On another point, your link says: "Between 30 and 50% of the trips on a high speed train are due to new demand. [10][11][12] These are all trips that would not have been undertaken if the high speed train did not exist. These travels do not replace a plane or car trip and consequently don't save energy and emissions."

    Those are journeys that are for a purpose, and hence help the economy: whether it's people going on holiday, for a day-trip somewhere, or on business. They *help* the economy. That's what better transport links get you.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547

    FF43 said:

    FPT

    FF43 said:

    Anyway, I don't think Merkel does think a solution can be found in 30 days. I think what she meant is that she is agnostic about the backstop. I believe she said the backstop isn't up to her, negotiations would be run as a common approach through the EU and it has to work for Ireland.

    Fwiw, I think, that she thinks, that basically the only solution is the one already on the table.
    Even after a reformulation (after another extension) the effect of the legal mechanics needs to be the same, i.e. allowing Ireland at the same time an open border with NI and the rest of the EU.

    I think she herself would favour a solution that has been proposed by HUYFD, I believe, NI referendum on the backstop and bribing the DUP to complain about the border in the Irish Sea a little less loudly.

    But I doubt that she will want to play a visibly active role. Her last significant intervention in the process occurred when Elmar Brook succeeded in persuading her to trust Mrs. May's reassurances, that the widening of the backstop to all of the UK would enable her to outmanoeuvre the DUP.
    Having promoted a positive response to Mrs. May's request among her peers, the subsequent failure of Mrs. May to effectively "sell" it as the valuable, generous and significant concession that it was to her domestic audience, made Mrs. Merkel's use of influence appear in hindsight as an unfortunate misallocation of political capital.

    I think she will be reluctant to invest too much in Mr. Johnson.
    Merkel's red lines are the protection of the Single Market first and foremost, a common EU approach to negotiation and something that works for Ireland last. While the backstop isn't a red line for Merkel she will support Ireland through the EU common approach. The Irish border has implications for the Single Market, which is what she really cares about. And although not mentioned, I believe, so does cross Channel trade.

    It wasn't really an offer to Johnson.
    Angela Merkel was politely asking Boris Johnson how he proposed doing what he was asking to do. Given his track record, it’s the obvious question.
    Indeed . She also said, I'm not the person you need to talk to about the backstop. This had been taken by Johnson supporters to mean that she will agree to his demands.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    On the paradox of High Speed Rail driving low cost airlines:

    https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-not-sustainable.html

    In a small country like ours, conventional express trains are fast enough, cheaper, and more environmentally sound. Build new lines please, but make them affordable, and support branch services rather than make them wither on the vine.

    But that's the point being missed. HS2 frees up enormous capacity for local services on mianlines which means that branch lines can have better services.
    That is not the experience in Europe according to the article, with smaller lines neglected.
    An article written by a conspiracy theorist who says all the facts about high speed rail must be manipulated by governments because he doesn't like either facts or governments?

    By somebody who believes wind farms are the wrong type of sustainable electricity because they're made of fibreglass instead of wood?

    By somebody who believes batteries should be replaced by compressed air cylinders because the latter work better?

    He has just a small credibility gap.

    As it happens, there have been issues with the neglect of branch lines in Europe, especially France and Germany. But that's not so much high speed rail's fault as the fact that Europeans tend not to get very worked up about railways in the way we do here.

    There has been plenty of spending on other lines as well as HS2. Without bothering to google it: Chase line electrified (cost - £100 million). Remodelling of New Street. New parkway station in Worcestershire. GWR mainline electrified. Waverley route partially reopened.

    True, cost estimates haven't been very good. But nor were Brunel's or Stephenson's. HS2 is the crowning of a genuinely progressive railway strategy that has faults and shortcomings but is for the first time since the 1940s generally moving the right way.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    How are those HS2 costs looking now, Lord Adonis? The total proect cost then is looking like the latest potential overspend.

    (And I am not anti-HS2. But I am anti costings for large projects that invariably bear no recognition to the stated costs on day one. We always see it. We are supposed to just accept that the people who did the initial costings were just muppets. I come from an industry where we build small cities in the harshest weather conditions in the world, expected to withstand the 100-year wave and with enough onboard generating capacity to power Edinburgh (or push a column of oil hundreds of miles uphill to shore). Even a 10% cost overrun on such projects would risk the joint venture changing operator. Now, if they can get the costsings on such an astonishing piece of construction pretty much spot on from day one, why should the public have to accept costings so wide of the mark? Well, we know why - they would never have allowed politicians to spend £80 billion on a slighlty better train set if the true number was known, is why. It's all part of the dishonesty in our political set up.)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8561286.stm

    "Lord Adonis said the project would create 10,000 jobs and yield £2 in benefits for every £1 spent.

    He said the first 120 miles between London and the West Midlands would cost between £15.8bn and £17.4bn.

    The cost per mile beyond Birmingham is then estimated to halve, taking the overall cost of the 335 mile Y-shaped network to about £30bn."

    Apples and oranges I think.
    Building stuff in the middle of nowhere is much less complex than building it where there is stuff already, where people live and can object.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    On the paradox of High Speed Rail driving low cost airlines:

    https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-not-sustainable.html

    In a small country like ours, conventional express trains are fast enough, cheaper, and more environmentally sound. Build new lines please, but make them affordable, and support branch services rather than make them wither on the vine.

    But that's the point being missed. HS2 frees up enormous capacity for local services on mianlines which means that branch lines can have better services.
    That is not the experience in Europe according to the article, with smaller lines neglected.
    That has indeed been Europe's experience in part. However, in much of Europe (especially the classic TGV lines in France) the high-speed lines are separate from the traditional lines. In the case of HS2, it's much more of a connected network, with classic-compatible trains going from the north and joining the HS2 network at places like Crewe. It is important that any new or upgraded line (whether HS2, HS3, EWR, EGIP etc) are considered as part of a wider network during planning. HS2 has done this, and you can download the reports.

    Decreasing funding for other lines (as France has done) is purely a political decision.

    On another point, your link says: "Between 30 and 50% of the trips on a high speed train are due to new demand. [10][11][12] These are all trips that would not have been undertaken if the high speed train did not exist. These travels do not replace a plane or car trip and consequently don't save energy and emissions."

    Those are journeys that are for a purpose, and hence help the economy: whether it's people going on holiday, for a day-trip somewhere, or on business. They *help* the economy. That's what better transport links get you.
    I see this argument wheeled out every time better transport links are proposed. It's weird logic. It's like saying, build more hospitals and more sick people get treated. Therefore, to keep illness down let's stop building hospitals.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    FF43 said:

    FPT

    FF43 said:

    Anyway, I don't think Merkel does think a solution can be found in 30 days. I think what she meant is that she is agnostic about the backstop. I believe she said the backstop isn't up to her, negotiations would be run as a common approach through the EU and it has to work for Ireland.

    Fwiw, I think, that she thinks, that basically the only solution is the one already on the table.
    Even after a reformulation (after another extension) the effect of the legal mechanics needs to be the same, i.e. allowing Ireland at the same time an open border with NI and the rest of the EU.

    I think she herself would favour a solution that has been proposed by HUYFD, I believe, NI referendum on the backstop and bribing the DUP to complain about the border in the Irish Sea a little less loudly.

    But I doubt that she will want to play a visibly active role. Her last significant intervention in the process occurred when Elmar Brook succeeded in persuading her to trust Mrs. May's reassurances, that the widening of the backstop to all of the UK would enable her to outmanoeuvre the DUP.
    Having promoted a positive response to Mrs. May's request among her peers, the subsequent failure of Mrs. May to effectively "sell" it as the valuable, generous and significant concession that it was to her domestic audience, made Mrs. Merkel's use of influence appear in hindsight as an unfortunate misallocation of political capital.

    I think she will be reluctant to invest too much in Mr. Johnson.
    Merkel's red lines are the protection of the Single Market first and foremost, a common EU approach to negotiation and something that works for Ireland last. While the backstop isn't a red line for Merkel she will support Ireland through the EU common approach. The Irish border has implications for the Single Market, which is what she really cares about. And although not mentioned, I believe, so does cross Channel trade.

    It wasn't really an offer to Johnson.
    Angela Merkel was politely asking Boris Johnson how he proposed doing what he was asking to do. Given his track record, it’s the obvious question.
    And answer will come there none ......
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    As Alasdair Darling was pointing out yesterday, you don't invest in tbe North by making it slightly easier to get to London. You do it by improving transport links in the North. HS2 sounds like a vanity project because that is exactly what it is. There are far better ways to spend £90 billion which will be far more fruitful for the North of England. A view that is not just limited to Tory activists.

    Well done, Richard. I heard Lord Darling too and what you say is perfectly correct.

    You saved me the need to post.
    and yet every single elected mayor in the north supports it.

    every single chamber of commerce in the north supports it

    almost every single elected council in the north supports it

    Darling is pretty much hated across places like Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool for cancelling their tram plans in 2004 and is himself seen as anti-north.

    But again, that would not register with southern voters as it is never ever reported in the national media.
    No one down hear every hears about anything north of the Watford Gap.
    Unless it involves Muslims.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    On the paradox of High Speed Rail driving low cost airlines:

    https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-not-sustainable.html

    In a small country like ours, conventional express trains are fast enough, cheaper, and more environmentally sound. Build new lines please, but make them affordable, and support branch services rather than make them wither on the vine.

    But that's the point being missed. HS2 frees up enormous capacity for local services on mianlines which means that branch lines can have better services.
    That is not the experience in Europe according to the article, with smaller lines neglected.
    That has indeed been Europe's experience in part. However, in much of Europe (especially the classic TGV lines in France) the high-speed lines are separate from the traditional lines. In the case of HS2, it's much more of a connected network, with classic-compatible trains going from the north and joining the HS2 network at places like Crewe. It is important that any new or upgraded line (whether HS2, HS3, EWR, EGIP etc) are considered as part of a wider network during planning. HS2 has done this, and you can download the reports.

    Decreasing funding for other lines (as France has done) is purely a political decision.

    On another point, your link says: "Between 30 and 50% of the trips on a high speed train are due to new demand. [10][11][12] These are all trips that would not have been undertaken if the high speed train did not exist. These travels do not replace a plane or car trip and consequently don't save energy and emissions."

    Those are journeys that are for a purpose, and hence help the economy: whether it's people going on holiday, for a day-trip somewhere, or on business. They *help* the economy. That's what better transport links get you.
    I see this argument wheeled out every time better transport links are proposed. It's weird logic. It's like saying, build more hospitals and more sick people get treated. Therefore, to keep illness down let's stop building hospitals.
    The statistical correlation between people seeing doctors and being ill is very high. The conclusion is obvious. Stay away from them.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,096
    Since Bozo appears so keen to retrace Mrs May's steps, here's a good idea for the Tory manifesto:

    "The state pension age should be raised to 75 within the next 16 years to help boost the UK economy, according to a Tory think tank."

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/state-pension-age-rise-conservatives-think-tank-centre-for-social-justice-a9064071.html
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,096

    As Alasdair Darling was pointing out yesterday, you don't invest in tbe North by making it slightly easier to get to London. You do it by improving transport links in the North. HS2 sounds like a vanity project because that is exactly what it is. There are far better ways to spend £90 billion which will be far more fruitful for the North of England. A view that is not just limited to Tory activists.

    Well done, Richard. I heard Lord Darling too and what you say is perfectly correct.

    You saved me the need to post.
    and yet every single elected mayor in the north supports it.

    every single chamber of commerce in the north supports it

    almost every single elected council in the north supports it

    Darling is pretty much hated across places like Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool for cancelling their tram plans in 2004 and is himself seen as anti-north.

    But again, that would not register with southern voters as it is never ever reported in the national media.
    No one down hear every hears about anything north of the Watford Gap.
    Surely we all watched "Cold Feet"? They even had some southern characters to keep the rest of us involved.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,548
    DavidL said:

    You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.

    Whilst transport is *a* key, I'd also argue that education is much more key for that. Cambridge's vibrant and world-beating tech sector grew up not because of proximity to London, but because of a university that created such opportunities by being forward-thinking.

    Interestingly (and I don't say this snidely), Oxford hasn't had anywhere near the same success. It's not quite managed to grow the same sort of companies.

    Improved transport links will help. But making universities growth incubators in their area might end up being much more rewarding, if chaotic.

    Another issue is that London is voracious. It creates jobs, wealth and opportunities, but needs feeding in order to do so (e.g. Crossraial). Stop feeding it, and the whole country is negatively affected. It needs feeding *whilst* the above is done to help the north.
  • StreeterStreeter Posts: 684
    It comes to something when the French President is more concerned about peace in Northern Ireland than the British Prime Minister.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    BJohnson might try to make the election all about implementing the referendum result

    That would be a very bad idea

    Either we've left (still loads more to do, I know I know) and the voters will be change the fecking record already

    Or we haven't left, in which case NEXT!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,096

    DavidL said:

    You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.

    Whilst transport is *a* key, I'd also argue that education is much more key for that. Cambridge's vibrant and world-beating tech sector grew up not because of proximity to London, but because of a university that created such opportunities by being forward-thinking.

    Interestingly (and I don't say this snidely), Oxford hasn't had anywhere near the same success. It's not quite managed to grow the same sort of companies.

    Improved transport links will help. But making universities growth incubators in their area might end up being much more rewarding, if chaotic.

    Another issue is that London is voracious. It creates jobs, wealth and opportunities, but needs feeding in order to do so (e.g. Crossraial). Stop feeding it, and the whole country is negatively affected. It needs feeding *whilst* the above is done to help the north.
    Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    DavidL said:

    It appears the ONS has been underestimating EU migration for a decade or so: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49420730 What a surprise. This analysis goes to 2016. Will we find the alleged fall in EU migration post that date was also wrong?

    To bring this back to topic it is yet another example of the very poor quality of statistical information available in this country when policy, such as transport, infrastructure and housing are discussed. Our political class being incompetent is a given but even the most competent cannot make good decisions without good information.

    afraid so.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    I travel on trains a lot and I’m unconvinced by HS2. The chief merit of the idea to me seems to be that Birmingham would effectively become a major new suburb of London, which would boost London’s capacity to drive the economy.

    I don’t see any merit to the Manchester limb. Better WiFi would make a bigger difference to business commuters.

    The north has bigger problems than just infrastructure. Large parts of it need to urgently rethink what they offer in the modern world. Whizzy trains aren’t going to answer that.

    Whizzy trains are part of the answer, as it means easier commuting and better logistics for firms that make things. Rail commuting typically takes twice as long up north for a given distance as it does down here, which might be one reason far fewer do it.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.

    Whilst transport is *a* key, I'd also argue that education is much more key for that. Cambridge's vibrant and world-beating tech sector grew up not because of proximity to London, but because of a university that created such opportunities by being forward-thinking.

    Interestingly (and I don't say this snidely), Oxford hasn't had anywhere near the same success. It's not quite managed to grow the same sort of companies.

    Improved transport links will help. But making universities growth incubators in their area might end up being much more rewarding, if chaotic.

    Another issue is that London is voracious. It creates jobs, wealth and opportunities, but needs feeding in order to do so (e.g. Crossraial). Stop feeding it, and the whole country is negatively affected. It needs feeding *whilst* the above is done to help the north.
    Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
    Is that why there were more Cambridge traitors than Oxford traitors?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    DavidL said:

    You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.

    Whilst transport is *a* key, I'd also argue that education is much more key for that. Cambridge's vibrant and world-beating tech sector grew up not because of proximity to London, but because of a university that created such opportunities by being forward-thinking.

    Interestingly (and I don't say this snidely), Oxford hasn't had anywhere near the same success. It's not quite managed to grow the same sort of companies.

    Improved transport links will help. But making universities growth incubators in their area might end up being much more rewarding, if chaotic.

    Another issue is that London is voracious. It creates jobs, wealth and opportunities, but needs feeding in order to do so (e.g. Crossraial). Stop feeding it, and the whole country is negatively affected. It needs feeding *whilst* the above is done to help the north.
    Top Universities are the modern equivalent to medieval monasteries . As a source of learning they create economic activity and opportunities for trade. We are blessed with the number of world standard universities in this country and we should certainly be encouraging them to help develop businesses in the entrepreneurial way that Cambridge did. But they too require connectivity and not just by internet.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,548
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.

    Whilst transport is *a* key, I'd also argue that education is much more key for that. Cambridge's vibrant and world-beating tech sector grew up not because of proximity to London, but because of a university that created such opportunities by being forward-thinking.

    Interestingly (and I don't say this snidely), Oxford hasn't had anywhere near the same success. It's not quite managed to grow the same sort of companies.

    Improved transport links will help. But making universities growth incubators in their area might end up being much more rewarding, if chaotic.

    Another issue is that London is voracious. It creates jobs, wealth and opportunities, but needs feeding in order to do so (e.g. Crossraial). Stop feeding it, and the whole country is negatively affected. It needs feeding *whilst* the above is done to help the north.
    Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
    Indeed, But Oxford has had noted successes in science, but less success in growing successful tech companies out of it. For instance:
    https://www.businessinsider.com/tom-hulme-cambridge-edge-over-oxford-startups-2017-9?r=UK
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.

    Whilst transport is *a* key, I'd also argue that education is much more key for that. Cambridge's vibrant and world-beating tech sector grew up not because of proximity to London, but because of a university that created such opportunities by being forward-thinking.

    Interestingly (and I don't say this snidely), Oxford hasn't had anywhere near the same success. It's not quite managed to grow the same sort of companies.

    Improved transport links will help. But making universities growth incubators in their area might end up being much more rewarding, if chaotic.

    Another issue is that London is voracious. It creates jobs, wealth and opportunities, but needs feeding in order to do so (e.g. Crossraial). Stop feeding it, and the whole country is negatively affected. It needs feeding *whilst* the above is done to help the north.
    Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
    That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.

    Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547

    I travel on trains a lot and I’m unconvinced by HS2. The chief merit of the idea to me seems to be that Birmingham would effectively become a major new suburb of London, which would boost London’s capacity to drive the economy.

    I don’t see any merit to the Manchester limb. Better WiFi would make a bigger difference to business commuters.

    The north has bigger problems than just infrastructure. Large parts of it need to urgently rethink what they offer in the modern world. Whizzy trains aren’t going to answer that.

    I think the business case is that there is need for additional capacity, which sensibly should be high speed. Whether or not the numbers add up for HS2 the argument makes sense as presumably the capacity won't be added if HS2 is cancelled.

    The additional capacity argument presumably weakens the further north you go.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    DavidL said:

    London has had Crossrail and is getting Crossrail 2. It is supposedly getting the Heathrow extension as well. We need more focus on transport infrastructure that is not London centric improving connectivity between other parts of the country. The most obvious is between the east and west coasts in the north. London has ensured our major lines are the west and east coast mainlines connecting rUK to it. Linking Newcastle, Sheffield, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool with high volume, high quality lines would be a start.

    Are those the lines built in the 1840s that led to the industrial revolution taking full effect nationwide, and to the greatest Empire the world had ever seen?

    Those mainlines?

    Dastardly London.
    First InterCity line was Liverpool-Manchester in 1830. London was late to the party, partly because of Nimbyism....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    FF43 said:

    I travel on trains a lot and I’m unconvinced by HS2. The chief merit of the idea to me seems to be that Birmingham would effectively become a major new suburb of London, which would boost London’s capacity to drive the economy.

    I don’t see any merit to the Manchester limb. Better WiFi would make a bigger difference to business commuters.

    The north has bigger problems than just infrastructure. Large parts of it need to urgently rethink what they offer in the modern world. Whizzy trains aren’t going to answer that.

    I think the business case is that there is need for additional capacity, which sensibly should be high speed. Whether or not the numbers add up for HS2 the argument makes sense as presumably the capacity won't be added if HS2 is cancelled.

    The additional capacity argument presumably weakens the further north you go.
    This is also presumably why it's not currently scheduled to run on special metals beyond Manchester and Leeds.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,548
    FF43 said:

    I travel on trains a lot and I’m unconvinced by HS2. The chief merit of the idea to me seems to be that Birmingham would effectively become a major new suburb of London, which would boost London’s capacity to drive the economy.

    I don’t see any merit to the Manchester limb. Better WiFi would make a bigger difference to business commuters.

    The north has bigger problems than just infrastructure. Large parts of it need to urgently rethink what they offer in the modern world. Whizzy trains aren’t going to answer that.

    I think the business case is that there is need for additional capacity, which sensibly should be high speed. Whether or not the numbers add up for HS2 the argument makes sense as presumably the capacity won't be added if HS2 is cancelled.

    The additional capacity argument presumably weakens the further north you go.
    You also need to consider the consequences of not doing it. If that capacity constraint is not dealt with in the next couple of decades, what are the effects? If you address it in ways other than HS2, what are those costs?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,096
    edited August 2019
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.

    Whilst transport is *a* key, I'd also argue that education is much more key for that. Cambridge's vibrant and world-beating tech sector grew up not because of proximity to London, but because of a university that created such opportunities by being forward-thinking.

    Interestingly (and I don't say this snidely), Oxford hasn't had anywhere near the same success. It's not quite managed to grow the same sort of companies.

    Improved transport links will help. But making universities growth incubators in their area might end up being much more rewarding, if chaotic.

    Another issue is that London is voracious. It creates jobs, wealth and opportunities, but needs feeding in order to do so (e.g. Crossraial). Stop feeding it, and the whole country is negatively affected. It needs feeding *whilst* the above is done to help the north.
    Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
    That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.

    Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
    I'm biased, having done a year of history there. But this appears to agree with you:

    https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?s=History

    Although this reverses the rankings:

    https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2017/history
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    It's an expensive business but the intra-north links would appear more important, building a mega city over, Liverpool / Manchester / Leeds that can counter balance London
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    ydoethur said:

    Oh and the price is £56bn at latest estimate.

    With a leaked report saying it could rise to £71bn - £86bn.

    Not the figures that some seem to pluck out of the air to make the scheme seem more expensive than reality.

    And yes, mayors of the north would spend that money on HS2 given the chance, they have repeatedly stated as such, as Burnham did yesterday.

    There is an interesting breakdown of the views of this new commission here (by a staunch HS2 supporter).

    https://paulbigland.blog/2019/08/21/the-oakervee-hs2-review-panels-announced-heres-a-look-and-some-thoughts/

    It splits about 5-3 in favour of HS2, although he also stresses some on both sides tend to take nuanced views.

    The key thing is that Andy Street is on there. If the review doesn't support HS2, he will absolutely crucify the government.
    Street will also likely lose the mayor election next year if HS2 is canned.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,096
    edited August 2019

    ydoethur said:

    Oh and the price is £56bn at latest estimate.

    With a leaked report saying it could rise to £71bn - £86bn.

    Not the figures that some seem to pluck out of the air to make the scheme seem more expensive than reality.

    And yes, mayors of the north would spend that money on HS2 given the chance, they have repeatedly stated as such, as Burnham did yesterday.

    There is an interesting breakdown of the views of this new commission here (by a staunch HS2 supporter).

    https://paulbigland.blog/2019/08/21/the-oakervee-hs2-review-panels-announced-heres-a-look-and-some-thoughts/

    It splits about 5-3 in favour of HS2, although he also stresses some on both sides tend to take nuanced views.

    The key thing is that Andy Street is on there. If the review doesn't support HS2, he will absolutely crucify the government.
    Street will also likely lose the mayor election next year if HS2 is canned.
    Newsnight suggested last night that the most we would see is tweaks.

    Meanwhile another example of Farage's impact on government policy.

    The Chair of the Stop HS2 campaign was distinctly unimpressive. And a quick look at their website confirms that they almost all live along the line.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.

    Whilst transport is *a* key, I'd also argue that education is much more key for that. Cambridge's vibrant and world-beating tech sector grew up not because of proximity to London, but because of a university that created such opportunities by being forward-thinking.

    Interestingly (and I don't say this snidely), Oxford hasn't had anywhere near the same success. It's not quite managed to grow the same sort of companies.

    Improved transport links will help. But making universities growth incubators in their area might end up being much more rewarding, if chaotic.

    Another issue is that London is voracious. It creates jobs, wealth and opportunities, but needs feeding in order to do so (e.g. Crossraial). Stop feeding it, and the whole country is negatively affected. It needs feeding *whilst* the above is done to help the north.
    Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
    That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.

    Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
    Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.

    Whilst transport is *a* key, I'd also argue that education is much more key for that. Cambridge's vibrant and world-beating tech sector grew up not because of proximity to London, but because of a university that created such opportunities by being forward-thinking.

    Interestingly (and I don't say this snidely), Oxford hasn't had anywhere near the same success. It's not quite managed to grow the same sort of companies.

    Improved transport links will help. But making universities growth incubators in their area might end up being much more rewarding, if chaotic.

    Another issue is that London is voracious. It creates jobs, wealth and opportunities, but needs feeding in order to do so (e.g. Crossraial). Stop feeding it, and the whole country is negatively affected. It needs feeding *whilst* the above is done to help the north.
    Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
    That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.

    Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
    I'm biased, having done a year of history there. But this appears to agree with you:

    https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?s=History

    Although this reverses the rankings:

    https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2017/history
    Remember, I do job interviews for History graduates. Oxford ones tend in my experience to be the ones with the greatest raw ability and the weakest actual performances.

    Rankings are another thing to be a bit wary about putting too much faith in. They are often highly subjective.

    And finally, of course, remember only a fraction of students attend more than one university so they struggle to make meaningful comparisons.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,548

    It's an expensive business but the intra-north links would appear more important, building a mega city over, Liverpool / Manchester / Leeds that can counter balance London

    With the best will in the world, it will take a couple of decades minimum for that mega city to build to a scale that will counterbalance London. And in the meantime, London needs investment to create the wealth that will be used to create the megacity. But that means London grows ...

    I cannot see how strangling London helps anyone. We need the wealth it creates.

    But it is voracious.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,235
    Agree about the branding. Should have gone with the Great Millennium Railway perhaps. The project also became heavily associated with Dave and Ozzy, so we all know the sort of people who’d foam about it for that reason only.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    macron sets out his vision for the world order

    he waffles as much as BoJo

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/avant-le-g7-macron-donne-sa-vision-du-monde-20190821
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    ydoethur said:

    Oh and the price is £56bn at latest estimate.

    With a leaked report saying it could rise to £71bn - £86bn.

    Not the figures that some seem to pluck out of the air to make the scheme seem more expensive than reality.

    And yes, mayors of the north would spend that money on HS2 given the chance, they have repeatedly stated as such, as Burnham did yesterday.

    There is an interesting breakdown of the views of this new commission here (by a staunch HS2 supporter).

    https://paulbigland.blog/2019/08/21/the-oakervee-hs2-review-panels-announced-heres-a-look-and-some-thoughts/

    It splits about 5-3 in favour of HS2, although he also stresses some on both sides tend to take nuanced views.

    The key thing is that Andy Street is on there. If the review doesn't support HS2, he will absolutely crucify the government.
    Street will also likely lose the mayor election next year if HS2 is canned.
    'Likely?!!!'

    That's not the case at all.

    He will undoubtedly lose next year if HS2 is canned.

    Right. Time to go and find out what happened. Have a good morning. In fact, as I am off on holiday immediately afterwards, it might well be have a good week.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.

    Whilst transport is *a* key, I'd also argue that education is much more key for that. Cambridge's vibrant and world-beating tech sector grew up not because of proximity to London, but because of a university that created such opportunities by being forward-thinking.

    Interestingly (and I don't say this snidely), Oxford hasn't had anywhere near the same success. It's not quite managed to grow the same sort of companies.

    Improved transport links will help. But making universities growth incubators in their area might end up being much more rewarding, if chaotic.

    Another issue is that London is voracious. It creates jobs, wealth and opportunities, but needs feeding in order to do so (e.g. Crossraial). Stop feeding it, and the whole country is negatively affected. It needs feeding *whilst* the above is done to help the north.
    Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
    Is that why there were more Cambridge traitors than Oxford traitors?
    There was an Oxford spy ring but it was quickly detected and wound up. There have been hints that some Oxford agents were missed and rose through the Establishment. We might raise an eyebrow if it emerges the three most recent Oxford-educated prime ministers, who have been carrying out Russia's foreign policy goals of weakening defence and breaking up Europe, have snow on their boots, but it might help make sense of things.

    Possibly the last dozen. Famously there was a faction in MI5 that believed Harold Wilson worked for the Kremlin.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    I have to say I simply don’t understand how one railway line can cost £50 billion or whatever.

    Nor do I understand why the papers today are presenting Boris’s visit yesterday as some great victory. All Merkel did was to say “Come up with an alternative that works.” If Boris had one he’d surely have told us. He doesn’t. He won’t. So on to no deal we go. Have I missed anything?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    If HS2 is cancelled I don't think we will see even a tenth of the money spent on new rail infrastructure in the north.

    We should start detailed planning for high speed rail across the Pennines, so that it is ready to start construction as soon as HS2 is finished, if not before. I don't see why we should have to choose between the two.

    The problems with HS2 seem to be ones of mismanagement and a lack of cost control. Those will be problems for any other major infrastructure project you might dream of spending the money on instead.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684

    DavidL said:

    London has had Crossrail and is getting Crossrail 2. It is supposedly getting the Heathrow extension as well. We need more focus on transport infrastructure that is not London centric improving connectivity between other parts of the country. The most obvious is between the east and west coasts in the north. London has ensured our major lines are the west and east coast mainlines connecting rUK to it. Linking Newcastle, Sheffield, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool with high volume, high quality lines would be a start.

    Are those the lines built in the 1840s that led to the industrial revolution taking full effect nationwide, and to the greatest Empire the world had ever seen?

    Those mainlines?

    Dastardly London.
    Yet nothing done since 1840's except in dastardly London and harking back to empire that was a flash in the pan and long gone shows what a dumpling you are.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    On the paradox of High Speed Rail driving low cost airlines:

    https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-not-sustainable.html

    In a small country like ours, conventional express trains are fast enough, cheaper, and more environmentally sound. Build new lines please, but make them affordable, and support branch services rather than make them wither on the vine.

    But that's the point being missed. HS2 frees up enormous capacity for local services on mianlines which means that branch lines can have better services.
    That is not the experience in Europe according to the article, with smaller lines neglected.
    That has indeed been Europe's experience in part. However, in much of Europe (especially the classic TGV lines in France) the high-speed lines are separate from the traditional lines. In the case of HS2, it's much more of a connected network, with classic-compatible trains going from the north and joining the HS2 network at places like Crewe. It is important that any new or upgraded line (whether HS2, HS3, EWR, EGIP etc) are considered as part of a wider network during planning. HS2 has done this, and you can download the reports.

    Decreasing funding for other lines (as France has done) is purely a political decision.

    On another point, your link says: "Between 30 and 50% of the trips on a high speed train are due to new demand. [10][11][12] These are all trips that would not have been undertaken if the high speed train did not exist. These travels do not replace a plane or car trip and consequently don't save energy and emissions."

    Those are journeys that are for a purpose, and hence help the economy: whether it's people going on holiday, for a day-trip somewhere, or on business. They *help* the economy. That's what better transport links get you.
    I see this argument wheeled out every time better transport links are proposed. It's weird logic. It's like saying, build more hospitals and more sick people get treated. Therefore, to keep illness down let's stop building hospitals.
    That has been Department of Health policy for years! ward closures.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    DavidL said:

    Wildly O/t, but I hope Ydoethr's students get good results today.

    Would he not have found out yesterday? In Scotland the schools are given the results (and more exact results) the day before the dreaded envelopes arrive. We got our results about 2 weeks ago now and my son is back at school already.
    I'm certain Granddaughter-in-law, who teaches A Level Sociology, didn't know her students results until last Thursday.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    As an HS2 sceptic (I've argued here with Josias about it) I tried to use it in the 2015 election, when some homes were already being compulsorily purchased and Anna Soubry was a zealous supporter. I predicted that the ultimate cost would double, as indeed it has.

    I found that opinion was fairly evenly divided but almost nobody except councillors and those directly affected actually cared - for most, it was a big project that might happen in the future, shrug. I don't think it will shift many votes either way - threatening to cancel it mildly damages the "we care about the North" rhetoric (but many northerners don't believe that anyway) and mildly helps against the "mad spender" jibe. Northern councillors will be very annoyed, but how many divisions do they have?

    Off topic, Marquee Mark's job sounds fascinating. What a diverse bunch we are!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    I travel on trains a lot and I’m unconvinced by HS2. The chief merit of the idea to me seems to be that Birmingham would effectively become a major new suburb of London, which would boost London’s capacity to drive the economy.

    I don’t see any merit to the Manchester limb. Better WiFi would make a bigger difference to business commuters.

    The north has bigger problems than just infrastructure. Large parts of it need to urgently rethink what they offer in the modern world. Whizzy trains aren’t going to answer that.

    Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield have good prospects, but it is hard to see a future for cotton and coal towns like my birth town of Wigan.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,235
    Cyclefree said:

    I have to say I simply don’t understand how one railway line can cost £50 billion or whatever.

    Nor do I understand why the papers today are presenting Boris’s visit yesterday as some great victory. All Merkel did was to say “Come up with an alternative that works.” If Boris had one he’d surely have told us. He doesn’t. He won’t. So on to no deal we go. Have I missed anything?

    I think the point is that Boris, through his steadfastness and force of personality, got the EU to a least acknowledge the possibility of renegotiating the WA when it had hitherto been the only game in town. Or perhaps Angela was just being kind.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Cyclefree said:

    I have to say I simply don’t understand how one railway line can cost £50 billion or whatever.

    Nor do I understand why the papers today are presenting Boris’s visit yesterday as some great victory. All Merkel did was to say “Come up with an alternative that works.” If Boris had one he’d surely have told us. He doesn’t. He won’t. So on to no deal we go. Have I missed anything?

    When even Tim Montgomerie understands this, you do have to wonder about the quality of some of the journalists:

    https://twitter.com/montie/status/1164415380535828482

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547

    FF43 said:

    I travel on trains a lot and I’m unconvinced by HS2. The chief merit of the idea to me seems to be that Birmingham would effectively become a major new suburb of London, which would boost London’s capacity to drive the economy.

    I don’t see any merit to the Manchester limb. Better WiFi would make a bigger difference to business commuters.

    The north has bigger problems than just infrastructure. Large parts of it need to urgently rethink what they offer in the modern world. Whizzy trains aren’t going to answer that.

    I think the business case is that there is need for additional capacity, which sensibly should be high speed. Whether or not the numbers add up for HS2 the argument makes sense as presumably the capacity won't be added if HS2 is cancelled.

    The additional capacity argument presumably weakens the further north you go.
    You also need to consider the consequences of not doing it. If that capacity constraint is not dealt with in the next couple of decades, what are the effects? If you address it in ways other than HS2, what are those costs?
    My uninformed guess is that HS2 will be built to Birmingham. It won't be continued north of there. People will accept HS2 as necessary within 5 years of operation. This is typical of these kinds of projects.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,964
    edited August 2019
    rkrkrk said:

    How are those HS2 costs looking now, Lord Adonis? The total proect cost then is looking like the latest potential overspend.

    (And I am not anti-HS2. But I am anti costings for large projects that invariably bear no recognition to the stated costs on day one. We always see it. We are supposed to just accept that the people who did the initial costings were just muppets. I come from an industry where we build small cities in the harshest weather conditions in the world, expected to withstand the 100-year wave and with enough onboard generating capacity to power Edinburgh (or push a column of oil hundreds of miles uphill to shore). Even a 10% cost overrun on such projects would risk the joint venture changing operator. Now, if they can get the costsings on such an astonishing piece of construction pretty much spot on from day one, why should the public have to accept costings so wide of the mark? Well, we know why - they would never have allowed politicians to spend £80 billion on a slighlty better train set if the true number was known, is why. It's all part of the dishonesty in our political set up.)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8561286.stm

    "Lord Adonis said the project would create 10,000 jobs and yield £2 in benefits for every £1 spent.

    He said the first 120 miles between London and the West Midlands would cost between £15.8bn and £17.4bn.

    The cost per mile beyond Birmingham is then estimated to halve, taking the overall cost of the 335 mile Y-shaped network to about £30bn."

    Apples and oranges I think.
    Building stuff in the middle of nowhere is much less complex than building it where there is stuff already, where people live and can object.
    But then, the people involved should know in advance they have oranges, not apples. And stop making cider - and make bloody marmalade. There is no excusing getting the costing of large engineering projects wrong by 100-200%. Other than X can get approval, X x 2 or X x 3 can't. It's just dishonesty on a massive scale.

    (Oh, and when "the middle of nowhere" is the mddle of the North Sea, there's a somewhat greater risk of unknowns than laying a bit of track through Oxfordshire.....)
This discussion has been closed.