Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB leadership latest

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 20 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB leadership latest

Hot betting LAB leadership favourite Keir Starmer first to make it onto the leadership ballot https://t.co/CQ0O2Bvokn

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    Interesting. I stuck a £5 on Thornberry when she hit 190/1

    That seemed way out to me.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 13,470
    Horsham for Thornberry.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,709

    Interesting. I stuck a £5 on Thornberry when she hit 190/1

    That seemed way out to me.

    I might regret this, but I'm not sure it is that much value. Let's say she squeaks in with 5-10% of the CLPs compared to Starmer on 50% and RLB on 20%. How likely is it that the wider membership/supporters/affiliates backs her? The CLP votes are surely a decent proxy for wider popularity since they are a sample of it. If anything, they are more engaged than the rest of it so I'd have thought a more moderate candidate would outperform their CLP numbers.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    Quincel said:

    Interesting. I stuck a £5 on Thornberry when she hit 190/1

    That seemed way out to me.

    I might regret this, but I'm not sure it is that much value. Let's say she squeaks in with 5-10% of the CLPs compared to Starmer on 50% and RLB on 20%. How likely is it that the wider membership/supporters/affiliates backs her? The CLP votes are surely a decent proxy for wider popularity since they are a sample of it. If anything, they are more engaged than the rest of it so I'd have thought a more moderate candidate would outperform their CLP numbers.
    All true. But this is a race. Maybe something will happen. I have no idea what. Perhaps Starmer will be revealed to be SeanT's love child with Margaret Thatcher.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 13,470
    edited January 20
    CLP nominations are not a good proxy for membership votes. Turnout is low and unrepresentative. This is the hard core.
  • Misogynistic LP will not elect a woman

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,055
    Looking rough for Nandy and Phillips. A shame, as they've made an interesting fist of it at least.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,689
    Regardless of how representative CLP meetings are of the wider membership, what is apparent is that RLB is not doing very well at picking up nominations from CLPs that nominated Corbyn in 2016. That at least must indicate the way the wind is blowing.

    Of 18 CLPs so far nominating, 7 nominated Corbyn in 2016.

    Of those 7:
    - 3 have backed Starmer
    - 2 have backed Thornberry
    - 2 have backed RLB

    RLB's other two nominations came from CLPs that didn't nominate in 2016.

    Nor is the rest of the sample biased towards CLPs that nominated Smith in 2016. Only 1 such constituency has so far made a nomination (and nominated Starmer.)
  • kle4 said:

    Looking rough for Nandy and Phillips. A shame, as they've made an interesting fist of it at least.

    Nandy will likely get on via affiliates, so she's probably going to be ok.
    But Phillips is definitely in trouble.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 599
    How on Earth, six years after Rotherham, is this not a much bigger story?

    http://hurryupharry.org/2020/01/20/the-manchester-grooming-gang-they-ruled-with-impunity-and-we-made-ourselves-powerless/

    As long as journalists refuse to prioritize stories that have ethnic minorities as "the bad guys" the victims will continue to pile up.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,689
    edited January 21
    kle4 said:
    It does seem a bit like VAR. The longer the process drags on, the more it's likely to be overturned.

    If the government wished to go ahead, it would have little reason not to publish Oakervee's recommendations now. If the government wished to scrap HS2, it will need to develop an alternative set of spending plans available in outline at the time of the announcement in order to be shown to be putting something else the way of the North and Midlands.

    Also, the National Audit Office is due to weigh in with a further report by the end of the month which is expected to question the project's value and which Johnson would want as cover if he were to pull the project.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/audit-office-to-criticise-hs2-delays-and-costs-kq8sjrhzt
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    HYUFD said:
    I don't think anyone doubts the intensity of feelings of Sanders supporters, they merely question whether he's transfer-friendly enough to be second favorite for the Democratic nomination.
  • kle4 said:
    It does seem a bit like VAR. The longer the process drags on, the more it's likely to be overturned.

    If the government wished to go ahead, it would have little reason not to publish Oakervee's recommendations now. If the government wished to scrap HS2, it will need to develop an alternative set of spending plans available in outline at the time of the announcement in order to be shown to be putting something else the way of the North and Midlands.

    Also, the National Audit Office is due to weigh in with a further report by the end of the month which is expected to question the project's value and which Johnson would want as cover if he were to pull the project.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/audit-office-to-criticise-hs2-delays-and-costs-kq8sjrhzt
    Radio 4 did a good program the other week on infrastructure spending and 're-balancing the economy'. The general conclusion seemed to be that infrastructure spending would be far better on stuff that moves people in and around major urban conurbations (tram, light rail etc) than new inter-city lines.

    Very few people are going to commute daily from Leeds to Manchester or Birmingham to Nottingham, otherwise they'd be much better off moving. So we should be spending the money on projects like the Nottingham Tram rather than HS2.

    I'm not saying there isn't a capacity problem on the WCML by the way, but surely that could be solved by fully upgrading the existing Chiltern line?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 21
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    I don't think anyone doubts the intensity of feelings of Sanders supporters, they merely question whether he's transfer-friendly enough to be second favorite for the Democratic nomination.
    As I have pointed out that was not an issue for Trump in 2016, against a divided field he won a majority of states with only 45% of the vote in the GOP primaries. Sanders got 43% 4 years ago, his opposition is much more divided this time, in 2016 anti Sanders voters all voted for Hillary
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    I don't think anyone doubts the intensity of feelings of Sanders supporters, they merely question whether he's transfer-friendly enough to be second favorite for the Democratic nomination.
    As I have pointed out that was not an issue for Trump in 2016, against a divided field he won a majority of states with only 45% of the vote in the GOP primaries. Sanders got 43% 4 years ago, his opposition is much more divided this time, in 2016 anti Sanders voters all voted for Hillary
    Republican primaries give delegates on a winner takes all basis, while for the Democrats, it's proportionate.

    I don't disagree that Sanders can win the nomination. But remember he's polling at 20% nationally now, rather than 43% nationally last time. All the polling evidence is that Democrats prefer a moderate. The Monmouth College Iowa poll really demonstrates his problem: as you eliminate low support candidates, he's not the major beneficiary.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    I don't think anyone doubts the intensity of feelings of Sanders supporters, they merely question whether he's transfer-friendly enough to be second favorite for the Democratic nomination.
    As I have pointed out that was not an issue for Trump in 2016, against a divided field he won a majority of states with only 45% of the vote in the GOP primaries. Sanders got 43% 4 years ago, his opposition is much more divided this time, in 2016 anti Sanders voters all voted for Hillary
    Republican primaries give delegates on a winner takes all basis, while for the Democrats, it's proportionate.

    I don't disagree that Sanders can win the nomination. But remember he's polling at 20% nationally now, rather than 43% nationally last time. All the polling evidence is that Democrats prefer a moderate. The Monmouth College Iowa poll really demonstrates his problem: as you eliminate low support candidates, he's not the major beneficiary.
    I also dispute your characterisation of "anti-Sanders" Democrats in 2016. Last time around, the Democrats had a choice between a charisma-free woman, who had the stench of Washington and corruption around her, and who managed to lower the Democratic vote in absolute terms significantly compared to 2008... and an aged Socialist.

    Sanders was the stop-Clinton candidate. He was excused many of his policy positions because he wasn't Clinton.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    Top tip: if you like skiing, Davos this coming week is the place to be. Normally, the slopes of Davos-Klosters are filled with skiiers. Next week, the hotels are full of heads of state, and the slopes are empty. Stay down the mountain, and get the train to Klosters, and ski some of Switzerlands best slopes when they are wonderfully, bizarrely empty.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    I don't think anyone doubts the intensity of feelings of Sanders supporters, they merely question whether he's transfer-friendly enough to be second favorite for the Democratic nomination.
    As I have pointed out that was not an issue for Trump in 2016, against a divided field he won a majority of states with only 45% of the vote in the GOP primaries. Sanders got 43% 4 years ago, his opposition is much more divided this time, in 2016 anti Sanders voters all voted for Hillary
    Republican primaries give delegates on a winner takes all basis, while for the Democrats, it's proportionate.

    I don't disagree that Sanders can win the nomination. But remember he's polling at 20% nationally now, rather than 43% nationally last time. All the polling evidence is that Democrats prefer a moderate. The Monmouth College Iowa poll really demonstrates his problem: as you eliminate low support candidates, he's not the major beneficiary.
    I also dispute your characterisation of "anti-Sanders" Democrats in 2016. Last time around, the Democrats had a choice between a charisma-free woman, who had the stench of Washington and corruption around her, and who managed to lower the Democratic vote in absolute terms significantly compared to 2008... and an aged Socialist.

    Sanders was the stop-Clinton candidate. He was excused many of his policy positions because he wasn't Clinton.
    Sanders was also tolerated rather than attacked by the Clinton campaign which knew it had won anyway. Your characterisation of Hillary as charisma-free puts one in mind of Keir Starmer. Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election so I'm not really sure what is the lesson for the Labour Party.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 454
    If Boris uses his first couple of months of peak political capital to a) cancel HS2 and then b) allow Huawei into the 5G network, I shall start to have serious buyers remorse.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,131
    Things you won't hear up here

    "I can't wait for HS2 to arrive"
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 454
    Pulpstar said:

    Things you won't hear up here

    "I can't wait for HS2 to arrive"

    Perhaps not. But if this is cancelled at such a late stage, there will be a total loss of confidence in industry about the UK’s seriousness at all major state backed infrastructure projects. I personally will not believe this government will back a single major infrastructure project through to fruition.

    Once it’s built, future generations will think it odd it was ever controversial.

    It’s a real test of Boris’s character and decision making process this. Does he listen to ill informed reactionaries like Andrew Gilligan, or is he prepared to rely on the considered and formal advice of the wider industry.

    Much like Huawei. We’ll get a sense of whether he is as gullible and “bend over, pants down, do as you like sir” for communist China as Osborne was, or whether he actually understands the 21st geopolitical order. As Tugenhardt said, at a price it’s possible to guard the hens from the fox. But why let the fox into the hen house in the first place?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    HS2 seems to be a great example of Don't Let Great Be The Enemy Of Good. There might be projects with better paybacks. But if we spend all our time arguing over which project is best, we'll end up actually building nothing.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 454
    rcs1000 said:

    HS2 seems to be a great example of Don't Let Great Be The Enemy Of Good. There might be projects with better paybacks. But if we spend all our time arguing over which project is best, we'll end up actually building nothing.

    Don’t even need to choose with rates this low and such a deep infrastructure deficit. Do the lot.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    rcs1000 said:

    HS2 seems to be a great example of Don't Let Great Be The Enemy Of Good. There might be projects with better paybacks. But if we spend all our time arguing over which project is best, we'll end up actually building nothing.

    It's ridiculous that it's so contentious and divisive.

    It's just a modern high-speed railway line running up the spine of England connecting all the major cities with the capital, whilst the others date from the Victorian era and are dangerously creaky and at capacity. It's a strategic economic enabler for the midlands and the North and will really help modal shift off domestic flights as well and liberate space on existing domestic commuter lines as well. Once it's built, it will be a step change and widely appreciated.

    And yet, people go purple in the face about it - a railway line.

    Utterly bizzare.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    FPT - @Sunil_Prasannan

    I've now quit Crossrail.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389
    edited January 21
    moonshine said:

    If Boris uses his first couple of months of peak political capital to a) cancel HS2 and then b) allow Huawei into the 5G network, I shall start to have serious buyers remorse.

    He clearly wants to cancel it, and clearly has since the beginning. The reason he’s been unable to do so is because despite the cost it’s evidently the right course of action on a huge number of grounds, including capacity, ecology and even cost, and he has no cover to do so. Now we find this morning he is trying to get his own review rewritten or at least respun to make it less positive.

    The question is whether he will find that cover from somewhere, or whether he will carry on dithering. He’s beginning to look more and more like Tony Blair without the verbal fluency.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389

    rcs1000 said:

    HS2 seems to be a great example of Don't Let Great Be The Enemy Of Good. There might be projects with better paybacks. But if we spend all our time arguing over which project is best, we'll end up actually building nothing.

    It's ridiculous that it's so contentious and divisive.

    It's just a modern high-speed railway line running up the spine of England connecting all the major cities with the capital, whilst the others date from the Victorian era and are dangerously creaky and at capacity. It's a strategic economic enabler for the midlands and the North and will really help modal shift off domestic flights as well and liberate space on existing domestic commuter lines as well. Once it's built, it will be a step change and widely appreciated.

    And yet, people go purple in the face about it - a railway line.

    Utterly bizzare.
    When I look at the arguments against it, I’m reminded of the arguments against railways themselves in the 1820s and 30s - particularly the ones put forward by major landowners.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 28,598
    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 31,882
    For the cost of HS2, you could build a dozen tidal lagoons that would solve the UK's upcoming energy gap with a "green industrial revolution". Reliable power - and cheaper than nuclear. And a life span into the middle of the twenty-second century.

    Pop quiz: which you gonna build?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389

    For the cost of HS2, you could build a dozen tidal lagoons that would solve the UK's upcoming energy gap with a "green industrial revolution". Reliable power - and cheaper than nuclear. And a life span into the middle of the twenty-second century.

    Pop quiz: which you gonna build?

    Answer - both, because you’ll need the energy to power the railway.

    But you’ll never build the tidal lagoons, as a load of eco-warriors will complain about the damage they cause to the seabed.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 31,882

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 28,598

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    We are in rare agreement.

    The other aspect is that HS2 is very unambitious. If we’re going to dig up all that countryside, shouldn’t we be installing plutonium-powered MagLev or Elon Musk vacuum tubes rather than technology that is already thirty years old? And if we are installing thirty years old technology, surely it should be cheap by way of compensation?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 31,882
    ydoethur said:

    For the cost of HS2, you could build a dozen tidal lagoons that would solve the UK's upcoming energy gap with a "green industrial revolution". Reliable power - and cheaper than nuclear. And a life span into the middle of the twenty-second century.

    Pop quiz: which you gonna build?

    Answer - both, because you’ll need the energy to power the railway.

    But you’ll never build the tidal lagoons, as a load of eco-warriors will complain about the damage they cause to the seabed.
    Yes, you build both. But the private sector will build the lagoons, and tight financial control will be imposed.

    (The ecological issues aren't a problem, in reality. They have already been addressed in Swansea. But even if compromises needed to be made, they'd still win out on the Geater Good argument. Because these are the issues we have to face up to in order to save the planet.)
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626
    rcs1000 said:
    I don’t understand how Biden is seen as a good politican. A confused old man shouting at trees, perhaps, with a history of plagiarism.

    That he is in the position he is in, seems to me about name recognition and the utter patheticness of the other Democrats (or parasites on the host in the case of Sanders).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.

    Construction has already commenced.

    ydoethur said:

    For the cost of HS2, you could build a dozen tidal lagoons that would solve the UK's upcoming energy gap with a "green industrial revolution". Reliable power - and cheaper than nuclear. And a life span into the middle of the twenty-second century.

    Pop quiz: which you gonna build?

    Answer - both, because you’ll need the energy to power the railway.

    But you’ll never build the tidal lagoons, as a load of eco-warriors will complain about the damage they cause to the seabed.
    Yes, you build both. But the private sector will build the lagoons, and tight financial control will be imposed.

    (The ecological issues aren't a problem, in reality. They have already been addressed in Swansea. But even if compromises needed to be made, they'd still win out on the Geater Good argument. Because these are the issues we have to face up to in order to save the planet.)
    When has reality, ecological benefit or the greater good ever stopped the environmental movement from protesting?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    There are lots of ways to do risk sharing, so that cost overruns can be shared.

    But governments hate entering into them, because if the private company does well, then they're idiots.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626
    edited January 21
    rcs1000 said:

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    There are lots of ways to do risk sharing, so that cost overruns can be shared.

    But governments hate entering into them, because if the private company does well, then they're idiots.
    They’re not idiots but the experts in retrospectIc excellence (ie MPs on Select committees) will be all over them. The NAO will issue a report saying that if things had been done differently now we know the facts, things may have been different. And the opposition party will explain that only state money can lead to nirvana.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:
    I don’t understand how Biden is seen as a good politican. A confused old man shouting at trees, perhaps, with a history of plagiarism.

    That he is in the position he is in, seems to me about name recognition and the utter patheticness of the other Democrats (or parasites on the host in the case of Sanders).
    I think you should take this up with @HYUFD , who see a man with great charisma.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626
    rcs1000 said:

    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:
    I don’t understand how Biden is seen as a good politican. A confused old man shouting at trees, perhaps, with a history of plagiarism.

    That he is in the position he is in, seems to me about name recognition and the utter patheticness of the other Democrats (or parasites on the host in the case of Sanders).
    I think you should take this up with @HYUFD , who see a man with great charisma.
    Im not sure trying to convince a person that believes he is always right, otherwise is a good use of my time.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    We are in rare agreement.

    The other aspect is that HS2 is very unambitious. If we’re going to dig up all that countryside, shouldn’t we be installing plutonium-powered MagLev or Elon Musk vacuum tubes rather than technology that is already thirty years old? And if we are installing thirty years old technology, surely it should be cheap by way of compensation?
    You mean, we should consider one form of technology that is known not to work, and another designed by a certifiable lunatic who has never yet designed anything useful (actually using a Victorian idea) ahead of technology that has worked for three decades?

    Are you sure that’s not going to lead to an increase in costs?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    ydoethur said:

    For the cost of HS2, you could build a dozen tidal lagoons that would solve the UK's upcoming energy gap with a "green industrial revolution". Reliable power - and cheaper than nuclear. And a life span into the middle of the twenty-second century.

    Pop quiz: which you gonna build?

    Answer - both, because you’ll need the energy to power the railway.

    But you’ll never build the tidal lagoons, as a load of eco-warriors will complain about the damage they cause to the seabed.
    Most eco-warriors seem to object to any technological innovation from the Spinning Jenny onwards.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 28,598
    ydoethur said:

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    We are in rare agreement.

    The other aspect is that HS2 is very unambitious. If we’re going to dig up all that countryside, shouldn’t we be installing plutonium-powered MagLev or Elon Musk vacuum tubes rather than technology that is already thirty years old? And if we are installing thirty years old technology, surely it should be cheap by way of compensation?
    You mean, we should consider one form of technology that is known not to work, and another designed by a certifiable lunatic who has never yet designed anything useful (actually using a Victorian idea) ahead of technology that has worked for three decades?

    Are you sure that’s not going to lead to an increase in costs?
    More than £100 billion for old technology is scandalous. Use the money elsewhere.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389

    ydoethur said:

    For the cost of HS2, you could build a dozen tidal lagoons that would solve the UK's upcoming energy gap with a "green industrial revolution". Reliable power - and cheaper than nuclear. And a life span into the middle of the twenty-second century.

    Pop quiz: which you gonna build?

    Answer - both, because you’ll need the energy to power the railway.

    But you’ll never build the tidal lagoons, as a load of eco-warriors will complain about the damage they cause to the seabed.
    Most eco-warriors seem to object to any technological innovation from the Spinning Jenny onwards.
    The spinning Jenny? You’re an optimist. I’m willing to bet that when copper was first smelted somebody complained the smoke damaged the cave.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 943
    We know what happened the last time Labour MP's decided to widen the ballot...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 31,882
    ydoethur said:

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.

    Construction has already commenced.

    ydoethur said:

    For the cost of HS2, you could build a dozen tidal lagoons that would solve the UK's upcoming energy gap with a "green industrial revolution". Reliable power - and cheaper than nuclear. And a life span into the middle of the twenty-second century.

    Pop quiz: which you gonna build?

    Answer - both, because you’ll need the energy to power the railway.

    But you’ll never build the tidal lagoons, as a load of eco-warriors will complain about the damage they cause to the seabed.
    Yes, you build both. But the private sector will build the lagoons, and tight financial control will be imposed.

    (The ecological issues aren't a problem, in reality. They have already been addressed in Swansea. But even if compromises needed to be made, they'd still win out on the Geater Good argument. Because these are the issues we have to face up to in order to save the planet.)
    When has reality, ecological benefit or the greater good ever stopped the environmental movement from protesting?
    But now the environmental movement is going to be told to STFU by Greta Thunberg. Protesting for protesting's sake isn't an option if it gets in the way of the change required to save the planet.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,498
    Good morning, everyone.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    ydoethur said:

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    We are in rare agreement.

    The other aspect is that HS2 is very unambitious. If we’re going to dig up all that countryside, shouldn’t we be installing plutonium-powered MagLev or Elon Musk vacuum tubes rather than technology that is already thirty years old? And if we are installing thirty years old technology, surely it should be cheap by way of compensation?
    You mean, we should consider one form of technology that is known not to work, and another designed by a certifiable lunatic who has never yet designed anything useful (actually using a Victorian idea) ahead of technology that has worked for three decades?

    Are you sure that’s not going to lead to an increase in costs?
    Indeed. Look up ‘Atmospheric Railway’.

    HS2 will allow large numbers of people to be moved rapidly around the country, in comfort, roughly every 5 minutes very efficiently using low carbon/no carbon green electricity.

    Short of a teleporter it’s about as much of a wonder technology as we can credibly get.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,629

    ydoethur said:

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    We are in rare agreement.

    The other aspect is that HS2 is very unambitious. If we’re going to dig up all that countryside, shouldn’t we be installing plutonium-powered MagLev or Elon Musk vacuum tubes rather than technology that is already thirty years old? And if we are installing thirty years old technology, surely it should be cheap by way of compensation?
    You mean, we should consider one form of technology that is known not to work, and another designed by a certifiable lunatic who has never yet designed anything useful (actually using a Victorian idea) ahead of technology that has worked for three decades?

    Are you sure that’s not going to lead to an increase in costs?
    Indeed. Look up ‘Atmospheric Railway’.

    HS2 will allow large numbers of people to be moved rapidly around the country, in comfort, roughly every 5 minutes very efficiently using low carbon/no carbon green electricity.

    Short of a teleporter it’s about as much of a wonder technology as we can credibly get.
    The ‘evidence and logic’ based politics ship sailed in 2016
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    rcs1000 said:

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    There are lots of ways to do risk sharing, so that cost overruns can be shared.

    But governments hate entering into them, because if the private company does well, then they're idiots.
    But, if costs do overrun, it’s almost always the Client that ultimately pays.

    Most private sector companies will simply threaten to stop work if they’re losing money or in a poor cashflow position.

    Yes, they know that technically means litigation but few government clients dare go all the way down that road as they’re not commercially astute or prepared enough to do it, and the private company always has better information. They don’t want to rack up millions in legal fees and delay the project for years.

    Since it can be virtually always argued the Client has changed or instructed something extra over what was envisaged in the original contract it ends in a compromise - a settlement - which is much better for the private firm that if it had just stayed quiet.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    For the cost of HS2, you could build a dozen tidal lagoons that would solve the UK's upcoming energy gap with a "green industrial revolution". Reliable power - and cheaper than nuclear. And a life span into the middle of the twenty-second century.

    Pop quiz: which you gonna build?

    Answer - both, because you’ll need the energy to power the railway.

    But you’ll never build the tidal lagoons, as a load of eco-warriors will complain about the damage they cause to the seabed.
    Most eco-warriors seem to object to any technological innovation from the Spinning Jenny onwards.
    The spinning Jenny? You’re an optimist. I’m willing to bet that when copper was first smelted somebody complained the smoke damaged the cave.
    And wattle and daub is hardly vegan, is it?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 4,329
    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    If Boris uses his first couple of months of peak political capital to a) cancel HS2 and then b) allow Huawei into the 5G network, I shall start to have serious buyers remorse.

    He clearly wants to cancel it, and clearly has since the beginning. dithering. He’s beginning to look more and more like Tony Blair without the verbal fluency.
    It's very easy to see why a solipsist like Johnson is not in favour of HS2 as any benefits will accrue decades hence when he will not be around to take the credit.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,498
    Football: I just put a little on Chelsea at 4 (Ladbrokes) to be winner without Manchester City or Liverpool. Leicester still favourites but Chelsea are only about 5 points behind, so seems worth doing. Other teams are about 11 points off Leicester.
  • eekeek Posts: 6,900
    With all this HS2 and spinning Jenny debate can I give people this tweet from earlier today



    Yes enough people are that stupid that you really do have to explain things in small worlds.

    HS2 failed the instance the BBC Breakfast news announced it as a faster train to Birmingham.

    And it's disliked by a lot of people especially those in London and Buckinghamshire as it doesn't actually give them any benefit as they already have decent trains to London and as it travels between the Chiltern and West Coast lines all it is, is 5 years of engineering pain and diversions.
  • eekeek Posts: 6,900
    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    If Boris uses his first couple of months of peak political capital to a) cancel HS2 and then b) allow Huawei into the 5G network, I shall start to have serious buyers remorse.

    He clearly wants to cancel it, and clearly has since the beginning. dithering. He’s beginning to look more and more like Tony Blair without the verbal fluency.
    It's very easy to see why a solipsist like Johnson is not in favour of HS2 as any benefits will accrue decades hence when he will not be around to take the credit.
    His constituency is Uxbridge - impacted by gaining nothing from it.
  • eekeek Posts: 6,900

    ydoethur said:

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    We are in rare agreement.

    The other aspect is that HS2 is very unambitious. If we’re going to dig up all that countryside, shouldn’t we be installing plutonium-powered MagLev or Elon Musk vacuum tubes rather than technology that is already thirty years old? And if we are installing thirty years old technology, surely it should be cheap by way of compensation?
    You mean, we should consider one form of technology that is known not to work, and another designed by a certifiable lunatic who has never yet designed anything useful (actually using a Victorian idea) ahead of technology that has worked for three decades?

    Are you sure that’s not going to lead to an increase in costs?
    Indeed. Look up ‘Atmospheric Railway’.

    HS2 will allow large numbers of people to be moved rapidly around the country, in comfort, roughly every 5 minutes very efficiently using low carbon/no carbon green electricity.

    Short of a teleporter it’s about as much of a wonder technology as we can credibly get.
    The ‘evidence and logic’ based politics ship sailed in 2016
    I'm at the point where I would be happy to see HS2 south of Birmingham killed provided all £50-70bn was spent on rail connections north of Birmingam (complete Northern Power Rail both HS2 routes from Leeds and Manchester to Birmingham).

    Then when the benefits are obvious we won't even need the London bit.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 25,921
    kle4 said:

    Looking rough for Nandy and Phillips. A shame, as they've made an interesting fist of it at least.

    pair of absolute donkeys
  • rcs1000 said:

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    There are lots of ways to do risk sharing, so that cost overruns can be shared.

    But governments hate entering into them, because if the private company does well, then they're idiots.
    I believe Heathrow Terminal 5 was done that way, and the project was successful.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 25,921

    ydoethur said:

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    We are in rare agreement.

    The other aspect is that HS2 is very unambitious. If we’re going to dig up all that countryside, shouldn’t we be installing plutonium-powered MagLev or Elon Musk vacuum tubes rather than technology that is already thirty years old? And if we are installing thirty years old technology, surely it should be cheap by way of compensation?
    You mean, we should consider one form of technology that is known not to work, and another designed by a certifiable lunatic who has never yet designed anything useful (actually using a Victorian idea) ahead of technology that has worked for three decades?

    Are you sure that’s not going to lead to an increase in costs?
    Indeed. Look up ‘Atmospheric Railway’.

    HS2 will allow large numbers of people to be moved rapidly around the country, in comfort, roughly every 5 minutes very efficiently using low carbon/no carbon green electricity.

    Short of a teleporter it’s about as much of a wonder technology as we can credibly get.
    You mean move them around the south of England of course, vanity project for London as usual.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389

    I am highly suspicious of the leak about Hs2...The reality is, if the line to Birmingham is built, then the opposition to a new railway know they have lost. As this is the most important and expensive part. Plus once it's built all the Southern Tories will no longer care, and most Northerners will want the extensions built. Once built the next stages may take longer, but they will eventually happen.

    If I could like that a thousand times I would. Outstanding post, and very interesting. Thank you for the information.

    Have a good morning.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 652
    eek said:

    With all this HS2 and spinning Jenny debate can I give people this tweet from earlier today



    Yes enough people are that stupid that you really do have to explain things in small worlds.

    HS2 failed the instance the BBC Breakfast news announced it as a faster train to Birmingham.

    And it's disliked by a lot of people especially those in London and Buckinghamshire as it doesn't actually give them any benefit as they already have decent trains to London and as it travels between the Chiltern and West Coast lines all it is, is 5 years of engineering pain and diversions.
    Really?

    The anecdote comes purely from the company itself. Much more likely to about branding, just as you wouldn't expect a Coke rival to succeed by being better, and better value for money, than Coke.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 943

    rcs1000 said:

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    There are lots of ways to do risk sharing, so that cost overruns can be shared.

    But governments hate entering into them, because if the private company does well, then they're idiots.
    I believe Heathrow Terminal 5 was done that way, and the project was successful.
    ...successful in ripping off everyone who goes by car as there as there is no drop off and you have to pay to do that, its disgraceful.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 652

    rcs1000 said:

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    There are lots of ways to do risk sharing, so that cost overruns can be shared.

    But governments hate entering into them, because if the private company does well, then they're idiots.
    I believe Heathrow Terminal 5 was done that way, and the project was successful.
    ...successful in ripping off everyone who goes by car as there as there is no drop off and you have to pay to do that, its disgraceful.
    Also true of every other airport I have used by car in the past decade, except Stornoway.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 943
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    There are lots of ways to do risk sharing, so that cost overruns can be shared.

    But governments hate entering into them, because if the private company does well, then they're idiots.
    I believe Heathrow Terminal 5 was done that way, and the project was successful.
    ...successful in ripping off everyone who goes by car as there as there is no drop off and you have to pay to do that, its disgraceful.
    Also true of every other airport I have used by car in the past decade, except Stornoway.
    not gatwick
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    We are in rare agreement.

    The other aspect is that HS2 is very unambitious. If we’re going to dig up all that countryside, shouldn’t we be installing plutonium-powered MagLev or Elon Musk vacuum tubes rather than technology that is already thirty years old? And if we are installing thirty years old technology, surely it should be cheap by way of compensation?
    You mean, we should consider one form of technology that is known not to work, and another designed by a certifiable lunatic who has never yet designed anything useful (actually using a Victorian idea) ahead of technology that has worked for three decades?

    Are you sure that’s not going to lead to an increase in costs?
    Indeed. Look up ‘Atmospheric Railway’.

    HS2 will allow large numbers of people to be moved rapidly around the country, in comfort, roughly every 5 minutes very efficiently using low carbon/no carbon green electricity.

    Short of a teleporter it’s about as much of a wonder technology as we can credibly get.
    You mean move them around the south of England of course, vanity project for London as usual.
    Why even write that?

    You know it goes to Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield and will knock an hour off the train time to Edinburgh.

    Is your objection that it goes to London?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,984

    I am highly suspicious of the leak about Hs2. We are not getting the full report just some juicy figure, that has obviously been released by those in government/civil service that don't want to build it. [...]

    For a lot of the DFT it's actually about preventing spending on infrastructure with a love of ever more deeper studies and consultations that drag about the planning period for roads and railways until most of the time people give up.

    Crossrail is an example. The was fierce campaigning against it being built and when the Cameron came to power, it was eagerly offered up as a scheme to cancel to save money. Indeed I remember stories in the Times about senior civil servants boasting about killing it off. It survived , and yes it has gone over budget, but at the moment it looks like it's going to be 20 to 25% over budget.

    But it is necessary, it will be busy and will transform London. It will be worth it.

    So will Hs2. It is only answer to the mainlines out of London filling up. Upgrading the existing lines is running into diminishing returns. It increases capacity on the West coast main line by 62%, midland main by 42% and the East Coast by 35%.

    There is an argument that it is over engineered. In their desire to run 18 trains an hour on the new line, is leading to some expensive track construction options to foundations and track quality. The busiest high speed lines in the World run no more than 14 trains an hour. To push it higher you are increasing wear on the track, this means more maintenance but less time to do it in, when you want the line to run at full capacity. If they pushed it back down to 14 trains an hour you'd save a lot on track construction. You could compensate on the capacity by running more splitting services. Train on Hs2 can be 400m long, so almost 2 normal trains in length. Plus the services to Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham can be run with double decker trains when you need the capacity.

    I think the problem we don't build that many big projects in the UK so when we do , people want it capable of doing everything. If we were serious we'd have planned 3 high speed lines in the UK, replacements for the West Coast and East Coast and New line for the South West.

    The reality is, if the line to Birmingham is built, then the opposition to a new railway know they have lost. As this is the most important and expensive part. Plus once it's built all the Southern Tories will no longer care, and most Northerners will want the extensions built. Once built the next stages may take longer, but they will eventually happen.

    Excellent post. Don't think Johnson would be sentimental about ditching HS2 however, despite his professed love of big projects. If it's changed in unimportant ways and renamed Boris-train he would be for it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613

    I am highly suspicious of the leak about Hs2. We are not getting the full report just some juicy figure, that has obviously been released by those in government/civil service that don't want to build it. I belong to a group that is interested in UK railways and occasionally there is a meet up. It has some old hands from BR and the Dft in it and some of the stories about it all really works is interesting

    For a lot of the DFT it's actually about preventing spending on infrastructure with a love of ever more deeper studies and consultations that drag about the planning period for roads and railways until most of the time people give up.

    Crossrail is an example. The was fierce campaigning against it being built and when the Cameron came to power, it was eagerly offered up as a scheme to cancel to save money. Indeed I remember stories in the Times about senior civil servants boasting about killing it off. It survived , and yes it has gone over budget, but at the moment it looks like it's going to be 20 to 25% over budget.

    But it is necessary, it will be busy and will transform London. It will be worth it.

    So will Hs2. It is only answer to the mainlines out of London filling up. Upgrading the existing lines is running into diminishing returns. It increases capacity on the West coast main line by 62%, midland main by 42% and the East Coast by 35%.

    There is an argument that it is over engineered. In their desire to run 18 trains an hour on the new line, is leading to some expensive track construction options to foundations and track quality. The busiest high speed lines in the World run no more than 14 trains an hour. To push it higher you are increasing wear on the track, this means more maintenance but less time to do it in, when you want the line to run at full capacity. If they pushed it back down to 14 trains an hour you'd save a lot on track construction. You could compensate on the capacity by running more splitting services. Train on Hs2 can be 400m long, so almost 2 normal trains in length. Plus the services to Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham can be run with double decker trains when you need the capacity.

    I think the problem we don't build that many big projects in the UK so when we do , people want it capable of doing everything. If we were serious we'd have planned 3 high speed lines in the UK, replacements for the West Coast and East Coast and New line for the South West.

    The reality is, if the line to Birmingham is built, then the opposition to a new railway know they have lost. As this is the most important and expensive part. Plus once it's built all the Southern Tories will no longer care, and most Northerners will want the extensions built. Once built the next stages may take longer, but they will eventually happen.

    Superb post.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 12,499

    There is an argument that it is over engineered. In their desire to run 18 trains an hour on the new line, is leading to some expensive track construction options to foundations and track quality. The busiest high speed lines in the World run no more than 14 trains an hour. To push it higher you are increasing wear on the track, this means more maintenance but less time to do it in, when you want the line to run at full capacity. If they pushed it back down to 14 trains an hour you'd save a lot on track construction. You could compensate on the capacity by running more splitting services. Train on Hs2 can be 400m long, so almost 2 normal trains in length. Plus the services to Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham can be run with double decker trains when you need the capacity.

    And the reason for this? Without running at a zillion mph and assuming huge loadings, there is no business case.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,225

    ydoethur said:

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    We are in rare agreement.

    The other aspect is that HS2 is very unambitious. If we’re going to dig up all that countryside, shouldn’t we be installing plutonium-powered MagLev or Elon Musk vacuum tubes rather than technology that is already thirty years old? And if we are installing thirty years old technology, surely it should be cheap by way of compensation?
    You mean, we should consider one form of technology that is known not to work, and another designed by a certifiable lunatic who has never yet designed anything useful (actually using a Victorian idea) ahead of technology that has worked for three decades?

    Are you sure that’s not going to lead to an increase in costs?
    More than £100 billion for old technology is scandalous. Use the money elsewhere.
    Anyone know why the costs keep rising? And as it hasn't started yet, what are the actual costs going to be? To go from 30 to 100 bn + before even starting appears negligent and does not inspire trust.

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,225
    edited January 21
    There is an odd thing about this Lords going to York stuff. It is exactly the sort of move you would expect a government run by Boris and Cummings not to make, because it's the sort of pathetic PR stuff that ordinary governments do to get a headline while just annoying sensible people, and people in the north who will feel patronised - as everyone knows it isn't going to happen.

    Unless of course they mean it. That isn't possible is it?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 28,598
    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    We are in rare agreement.

    The other aspect is that HS2 is very unambitious. If we’re going to dig up all that countryside, shouldn’t we be installing plutonium-powered MagLev or Elon Musk vacuum tubes rather than technology that is already thirty years old? And if we are installing thirty years old technology, surely it should be cheap by way of compensation?
    You mean, we should consider one form of technology that is known not to work, and another designed by a certifiable lunatic who has never yet designed anything useful (actually using a Victorian idea) ahead of technology that has worked for three decades?

    Are you sure that’s not going to lead to an increase in costs?
    More than £100 billion for old technology is scandalous. Use the money elsewhere.
    Anyone know why the costs keep rising? And as it hasn't started yet, what are the actual costs going to be? To go from 30 to 100 bn + before even starting appears negligent and does not inspire trust.

    I suspect both figures were massaged. One to look cheap to get the project approved and one to look expensive to get it canned.

    However you slice it, and I’m sure as @rationalplan2 says economies could be made, it’s a ginormous figure. I simply refuse to believe that it couldn’t be spent far more productively on less glamorous projects.

    There are three regional infrastructure problems that could be usefully addressed - Crossrail 2, the Trans Pennine link and improving connectivity in the Scottish central belt. I suspect all three could be done for less than HS2.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 28,598
    algarkirk said:

    There is an odd thing about this Lords going to York stuff. It is exactly the sort of move you would expect a government run by Boris and Cummings not to make, because it's the sort of pathetic PR stuff that ordinary governments do to get a headline while just annoying sensible people, and people in the north who will feel patronised - as everyone knows it isn't going to happen.

    Unless of course they mean it. That isn't possible is it?

    Remind me, how many bridges has Boris Johnson mooted that have yet to see a shovel raised in anger?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 12,499

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    We are in rare agreement.

    The other aspect is that HS2 is very unambitious. If we’re going to dig up all that countryside, shouldn’t we be installing plutonium-powered MagLev or Elon Musk vacuum tubes rather than technology that is already thirty years old? And if we are installing thirty years old technology, surely it should be cheap by way of compensation?

    You mean, we should consider one form of technology that is known not to work, and another designed by a certifiable lunatic who has never yet designed anything useful (actually using a Victorian idea) ahead of technology that has worked for three decades?

    Are you sure that’s not going to lead to an increase in costs?
    More than £100 billion for old technology is scandalous. Use the money elsewhere.
    Anyone know why the costs keep rising? And as it hasn't started yet, what are the actual costs going to be? To go from 30 to 100 bn + before even starting appears negligent and does not inspire trust.

    I suspect both figures were massaged. One to look cheap to get the project approved and one to look expensive to get it canned.

    However you slice it, and I’m sure as @rationalplan2 says economies could be made, it’s a ginormous figure. I simply refuse to believe that it couldn’t be spent far more productively on less glamorous projects.

    There are three regional infrastructure problems that could be usefully addressed - Crossrail 2, the Trans Pennine link and improving connectivity in the Scottish central belt. I suspect all three could be done for less than HS2.
    A colleague of mine of many years in the industry says that "politicians like to cut ribbons." A new signalling system on existing infrastructure to improve performance and capacity is not nearly so sexy.

    I'm sceptical about Crossrail 2. I'm not sure who wants to make journeys from Tooting to the Lea Valley. Waterloo is fairly central and has good tube connections anyway. The only advantage of building two more lines from Surbiton into the centre of London would be to make use of spare capacity on the SWML from Surbiton to Basingstoke. Perhaps if the Basingstoke to Exeter line was returned to its former glory, then maybe it would make sense.
  • eekeek Posts: 6,900

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    I can see the case for upgrading a national infrastructre that is now 150 years old. The problem with the massively expensive HS2 project is that once the commitment is made and construction is commenced, the Govt. can't cancel - even if the costs spiral to £200 bn. You can't have a high speed train from London to the middle of leafy Oxfordshire - and then stop.

    And knowing that it can't be cancelled, the costs will inevitably spiral. There is no meaningful sanction to prevent that happening.
    We are in rare agreement.

    The other aspect is that HS2 is very unambitious. If we’re going to dig up all that countryside, shouldn’t we be installing plutonium-powered MagLev or Elon Musk vacuum tubes rather than technology that is already thirty years old? And if we are installing thirty years old technology, surely it should be cheap by way of compensation?
    You mean, we should consider one form of technology that is known not to work, and another designed by a certifiable lunatic who has never yet designed anything useful (actually using a Victorian idea) ahead of technology that has worked for three decades?

    Are you sure that’s not going to lead to an increase in costs?
    More than £100 billion for old technology is scandalous. Use the money elsewhere.
    Anyone know why the costs keep rising? And as it hasn't started yet, what are the actual costs going to be? To go from 30 to 100 bn + before even starting appears negligent and does not inspire trust.

    I suspect both figures were massaged. One to look cheap to get the project approved and one to look expensive to get it canned.

    However you slice it, and I’m sure as @rationalplan2 says economies could be made, it’s a ginormous figure. I simply refuse to believe that it couldn’t be spent far more productively on less glamorous projects.

    There are three regional infrastructure problems that could be usefully addressed - Crossrail 2, the Trans Pennine link and improving connectivity in the Scottish central belt. I suspect all three could be done for less than HS2.
    You instantly go for a London project.

    Sorry but as Boris wants to keep the north you won't see a big London infrastructure project in his premiership.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    I don't think anyone doubts the intensity of feelings of Sanders supporters, they merely question whether he's transfer-friendly enough to be second favorite for the Democratic nomination.
    As I have pointed out that was not an issue for Trump in 2016, against a divided field he won a majority of states with only 45% of the vote in the GOP primaries. Sanders got 43% 4 years ago, his opposition is much more divided this time, in 2016 anti Sanders voters all voted for Hillary
    Republican primaries give delegates on a winner takes all basis, while for the Democrats, it's proportionate.

    I don't disagree that Sanders can win the nomination. But remember he's polling at 20% nationally now, rather than 43% nationally last time. All the polling evidence is that Democrats prefer a moderate. The Monmouth College Iowa poll really demonstrates his problem: as you eliminate low support candidates, he's not the major beneficiary.
    There is another left liberal in the race this time, Warren, whose votes will mainly go to Sanders, that was not the case in 2016
  • eekeek Posts: 6,900
    tlg86 said:

    There is an argument that it is over engineered. In their desire to run 18 trains an hour on the new line, is leading to some expensive track construction options to foundations and track quality. The busiest high speed lines in the World run no more than 14 trains an hour. To push it higher you are increasing wear on the track, this means more maintenance but less time to do it in, when you want the line to run at full capacity. If they pushed it back down to 14 trains an hour you'd save a lot on track construction. You could compensate on the capacity by running more splitting services. Train on Hs2 can be 400m long, so almost 2 normal trains in length. Plus the services to Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham can be run with double decker trains when you need the capacity.

    And the reason for this? Without running at a zillion mph and assuming huge loadings, there is no business case.
    Because they haven't looked at how you could do things differently just faster.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:
    I don’t understand how Biden is seen as a good politican. A confused old man shouting at trees, perhaps, with a history of plagiarism.

    That he is in the position he is in, seems to me about name recognition and the utter patheticness of the other Democrats (or parasites on the host in the case of Sanders).
    Biden is the best of a poor Democratic field in terms of beating Trump but I suspect they will go with their hearts rather than their heads this time and pick Sanders
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 28,598
    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    You mean, we should consider one form of technology that is known not to work, and another designed by a certifiable lunatic who has never yet designed anything useful (actually using a Victorian idea) ahead of technology that has worked for three decades?

    Are you sure that’s not going to lead to an increase in costs?

    More than £100 billion for old technology is scandalous. Use the money elsewhere.
    Anyone know why the costs keep rising? And as it hasn't started yet, what are the actual costs going to be? To go from 30 to 100 bn + before even starting appears negligent and does not inspire trust.

    I suspect both figures were massaged. One to look cheap to get the project approved and one to look expensive to get it canned.

    However you slice it, and I’m sure as @rationalplan2 says economies could be made, it’s a ginormous figure. I simply refuse to believe that it couldn’t be spent far more productively on less glamorous projects.

    There are three regional infrastructure problems that could be usefully addressed - Crossrail 2, the Trans Pennine link and improving connectivity in the Scottish central belt. I suspect all three could be done for less than HS2.
    You instantly go for a London project.

    Sorry but as Boris wants to keep the north you won't see a big London infrastructure project in his premiership.
    Oh I wasn’t talking about what will happen. What will happen is that we are going to get a cavalcade of eye-catching but poor value bridges, bypasses, choo-choo trains and museums in places namechecked by the Justified Ancients Of Mu Mu in “It’s Grim Up North”.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 31,882

    I belong to a group that is interested in UK railways and occasionally there is a meet up. It has some old hands from BR and the Dft in it and some of the stories about it all really works is interesting. Old stories about the civil servants in charge of the railways, basically hating the railways one who used to really hate London railway commuters in particular.

    For a lot of the DFT it's actually about preventing spending on infrastructure with a love of ever more deeper studies and consultations that drag about the planning period for roads and railways until most of the time people give up.

    Crossrail is an example. The was fierce campaigning against it being built and when the Cameron came to power, it was eagerly offered up as a scheme to cancel to save money. Indeed I remember stories in the Times about senior civil servants boasting about killing it off. It survived , and yes it has gone over budget, but at the moment it looks like it's going to be 20 to 25% over budget.

    But it is necessary, it will be busy and will transform London. It will be worth it.

    So will Hs2. It is only answer to the mainlines out of London filling up. Upgrading the existing lines is running into diminishing returns. It increases capacity on the West coast main line by 62%, midland main by 42% and the East Coast by 35%.

    There is an argument that it is over engineered. In their desire to run 18 trains an hour on the new line, is leading to some expensive track construction options to foundations and track quality. The busiest high speed lines in the World run no more than 14 trains an hour. To push it higher you are increasing wear on the track, this means more maintenance but less time to do it in, when you want the line to run at full capacity. If they pushed it back down to 14 trains an hour you'd save a lot on track construction. You could compensate on the capacity by running more splitting services. Train on Hs2 can be 400m long, so almost 2 normal trains in length. Plus the services to Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham can be run with double decker trains when you need the capacity.

    I think the problem we don't build that many big projects in the UK so when we do , people want it capable of doing everything. If we were serious we'd have planned 3 high speed lines in the UK, replacements for the West Coast and East Coast and New line for the South West.

    The reality is, if the line to Birmingham is built, then the opposition to a new railway know they have lost. As this is the most important and expensive part. Plus once it's built all the Southern Tories will no longer care, and most Northerners will want the extensions built. Once built the next stages may take longer, but they will eventually happen.

    Outstanding contribution.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,139
    HYUFD said:

    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:
    I don’t understand how Biden is seen as a good politican. A confused old man shouting at trees, perhaps, with a history of plagiarism.

    That he is in the position he is in, seems to me about name recognition and the utter patheticness of the other Democrats (or parasites on the host in the case of Sanders).
    Biden is the best of a poor Democratic field in terms of beating Trump but I suspect they will go with their hearts rather than their heads this time and pick Sanders
    If Biden is the best then the field is rather denuded of talent.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 21
    philiph said:

    HYUFD said:

    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:
    I don’t understand how Biden is seen as a good politican. A confused old man shouting at trees, perhaps, with a history of plagiarism.

    That he is in the position he is in, seems to me about name recognition and the utter patheticness of the other Democrats (or parasites on the host in the case of Sanders).
    Biden is the best of a poor Democratic field in terms of beating Trump but I suspect they will go with their hearts rather than their heads this time and pick Sanders
    If Biden is the best then the field is rather denuded of talent.
    Well that is clear and also why I suspect Trump will be re elected
  • eekeek Posts: 6,900

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    You mean, we should consider one form of technology that is known not to work, and another designed by a certifiable lunatic who has never yet designed anything useful (actually using a Victorian idea) ahead of technology that has worked for three decades?

    Are you sure that’s not going to lead to an increase in costs?

    More than £100 billion for old technology is scandalous. Use the money elsewhere.
    Anyone know why the costs keep rising? And as it hasn't started yet, what are the actual costs going to be? To go from 30 to 100 bn + before even starting appears negligent and does not inspire trust.

    I suspect both figures were massaged. One to look cheap to get the project approved and one to look expensive to get it canned.

    However you slice it, and I’m sure as @rationalplan2 says economies could be made, it’s a ginormous figure. I simply refuse to believe that it couldn’t be spent far more productively on less glamorous projects.

    There are three regional infrastructure problems that could be usefully addressed - Crossrail 2, the Trans Pennine link and improving connectivity in the Scottish central belt. I suspect all three could be done for less than HS2.
    You instantly go for a London project.

    Sorry but as Boris wants to keep the north you won't see a big London infrastructure project in his premiership.
    Oh I wasn’t talking about what will happen. What will happen is that we are going to get a cavalcade of eye-catching but poor value bridges, bypasses, choo-choo trains and museums in places namechecked by the Justified Ancients Of Mu Mu in “It’s Grim Up North”.
    Not just places namechecked in "It's Grim Up North" as that doesn't extend beyond Yorkshire.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,815

    I think the problem we don't build that many big projects in the UK so when we do , people want it capable of doing everything. If we were serious we'd have planned 3 high speed lines in the UK, replacements for the West Coast and East Coast and New line for the South West.

    Excellent post all round. I've also seen a proposal for an eastern high speed line (alongside the southwestern one you mention and HS2) - out of Liverpool Street or Stratford to Stansted, then east to join the Great Eastern Main Line. The idea seems a sound way of opening up more of the East for London commuters and boosting the 'London Stansted Cambridge Corridor'.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,139
    HYUFD said:

    philiph said:

    HYUFD said:

    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:
    I don’t understand how Biden is seen as a good politican. A confused old man shouting at trees, perhaps, with a history of plagiarism.

    That he is in the position he is in, seems to me about name recognition and the utter patheticness of the other Democrats (or parasites on the host in the case of Sanders).
    Biden is the best of a poor Democratic field in terms of beating Trump but I suspect they will go with their hearts rather than their heads this time and pick Sanders
    If Biden is the best then the field is rather denuded of talent.
    Well that is clear and also why I suspect Trump will be re elected
    Is there any chance Trump will be unable to stand due to impeachment or some other reason? If not Trump, who do the Republicans select?
  • eekeek Posts: 6,900
    HYUFD said:

    philiph said:

    HYUFD said:

    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:
    I don’t understand how Biden is seen as a good politican. A confused old man shouting at trees, perhaps, with a history of plagiarism.

    That he is in the position he is in, seems to me about name recognition and the utter patheticness of the other Democrats (or parasites on the host in the case of Sanders).
    Biden is the best of a poor Democratic field in terms of beating Trump but I suspect they will go with their hearts rather than their heads this time and pick Sanders
    If Biden is the best then the field is rather denuded of talent.
    Well that is clear and also why I suspect Trump will be re elected
    The question I can't work out the answer to is, are the Democrats completely devoid of talent or is this a typical mid-term Presidency where the real politicians are sitting it out?
  • eekeek Posts: 6,900
    Essexit said:

    I think the problem we don't build that many big projects in the UK so when we do , people want it capable of doing everything. If we were serious we'd have planned 3 high speed lines in the UK, replacements for the West Coast and East Coast and New line for the South West.

    Excellent post all round. I've also seen a proposal for an eastern high speed line (alongside the southwestern one you mention and HS2) - out of Liverpool Street or Stratford to Stansted, then east to join the Great Eastern Main Line. The idea seems a sound way of opening up more of the East for London commuters and boosting the 'London Stansted Cambridge Corridor'.
    Which party did those constituencies vote for? I can't see it happening immediately.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,139
    eek said:

    Essexit said:

    I think the problem we don't build that many big projects in the UK so when we do , people want it capable of doing everything. If we were serious we'd have planned 3 high speed lines in the UK, replacements for the West Coast and East Coast and New line for the South West.

    Excellent post all round. I've also seen a proposal for an eastern high speed line (alongside the southwestern one you mention and HS2) - out of Liverpool Street or Stratford to Stansted, then east to join the Great Eastern Main Line. The idea seems a sound way of opening up more of the East for London commuters and boosting the 'London Stansted Cambridge Corridor'.
    Which party did those constituencies vote for? I can't see it happening immediately.
    From a distance you would think a good Dem candidate would look at this election and see it as a great chance to be elected POTUS when the opposition is Trump.

    I guess the stigma of finding yourself second to Trump may have negative implications for your political future?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 21
    philiph said:

    HYUFD said:

    philiph said:

    HYUFD said:

    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:
    I don’t understand how Biden is seen as a good politican. A confused old man shouting at trees, perhaps, with a history of plagiarism.

    That he is in the position he is in, seems to me about name recognition and the utter patheticness of the other Democrats (or parasites on the host in the case of Sanders).
    Biden is the best of a poor Democratic field in terms of beating Trump but I suspect they will go with their hearts rather than their heads this time and pick Sanders
    If Biden is the best then the field is rather denuded of talent.
    Well that is clear and also why I suspect Trump will be re elected
    Is there any chance Trump will be unable to stand due to impeachment or some other reason? If not Trump, who do the Republicans select?
    Almost certainly not as the Republican controlled Senate will vote he is not guilty in a month, if not Trump Pence of course
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 10,273

    I’m all in favour of infrastructure investment. HS2 seems to be a massively expensive project with only moderate advantages. Use the money elsewhere on projects with more obvious advantages like Crossrail 2.

    Full marks. Trolling us northerners before we've even donned our flat caps and exercised the whippets.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,815
    eek said:

    Essexit said:

    I think the problem we don't build that many big projects in the UK so when we do , people want it capable of doing everything. If we were serious we'd have planned 3 high speed lines in the UK, replacements for the West Coast and East Coast and New line for the South West.

    Excellent post all round. I've also seen a proposal for an eastern high speed line (alongside the southwestern one you mention and HS2) - out of Liverpool Street or Stratford to Stansted, then east to join the Great Eastern Main Line. The idea seems a sound way of opening up more of the East for London commuters and boosting the 'London Stansted Cambridge Corridor'.
    Which party did those constituencies vote for? I can't see it happening immediately.
    Point taken - the main beneficiaries would be in safe Conservative seats, with the exception of Cambridge which is not exactly in play!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 21
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    philiph said:

    HYUFD said:

    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:
    I don’t understand how Biden is seen as a good politican. A confused old man shouting at trees, perhaps, with a history of plagiarism.

    That he is in the position he is in, seems to me about name recognition and the utter patheticness of the other Democrats (or parasites on the host in the case of Sanders).
    Biden is the best of a poor Democratic field in terms of beating Trump but I suspect they will go with their hearts rather than their heads this time and pick Sanders
    If Biden is the best then the field is rather denuded of talent.
    Well that is clear and also why I suspect Trump will be re elected
    The question I can't work out the answer to is, are the Democrats completely devoid of talent or is this a typical mid-term Presidency where the real politicians are sitting it out?
    Most talented candidates wait until the President cannot run again e.g. JFK, Obama etc historically (and of course Joe P Kennedy III is a prospect for 2024 if he wins the Massachusetts Senate race as is likely) but the President is vulnerable even if his party has only been in the Oval office for 4 years
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 28,598
    Essexit said:

    I think the problem we don't build that many big projects in the UK so when we do , people want it capable of doing everything. If we were serious we'd have planned 3 high speed lines in the UK, replacements for the West Coast and East Coast and New line for the South West.

    Excellent post all round. I've also seen a proposal for an eastern high speed line (alongside the southwestern one you mention and HS2) - out of Liverpool Street or Stratford to Stansted, then east to join the Great Eastern Main Line. The idea seems a sound way of opening up more of the East for London commuters and boosting the 'London Stansted Cambridge Corridor'.
    If you wanted to help Cambridge, a very simple and cheap measure would be to rebuild the train line that ran between Sudbury and Cambridge that was closed in the 1960s. That would reconnect Cambridge and Colchester and open up a string of new commuter towns for Cambridge such as Haverhill that could do with reinvigoration.
This discussion has been closed.