Do you want to discuss boring politics? (176 Viewers)

[duffer]

I am emotional. I love this country and I’m sick of seeing it meander into decline for no good reason.

HS2 has not made that case *to you* but it has to business and transport experts and northern leaders and everyone else who has had the time and expertise to decide these things.

And no not everyone who disagrees with me are cranks but cranks do tend to disagree with me. It’s the same empty stuff, you talk about emotional but your entire argument is an appeal to emotion with no credible alternative policy proposals.

But the point is that it didn't make the case to *everyone*, unless you cherry pick only the people that agree with you.

Plenty of other independent assessors questioned the value then and since. But like you once the idea that a gold-plated, fastest railway ever built, was the way forward, nothing else was considered by the various decision makers involved. HS2 or bust, basically.

If you want credible proposals then look again at the amounts involved, decide clearly what the aims are, and then plan realistically.

I'm not appealing to emotion, you're the one doing that by banging on about cranks and Brexit.

It takes about thirty seconds to find neutral, scientific opinions querying the assumptions behind HS2, even before the huge cost over-runs became apparent. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them invalid.

FactCheck Q&A: How does HS2 compare to other bullet trains?

HS2 has come under repeated criticism for bad planning and wasting money. Even the Department for Transport's own former Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Roderick Smith has called for a "root-and-branch review" of the whole project. So what's really going on? And how does the project compare...

www.channel4.com

 

---

[duffer]

Can I just put this out there. Start from scratch, and assume you've got 100 billion to invest in the country.

Consider what's going on in terms of the disparity of wealth, the lack of housing, the state of schools, hospitals, and prisons, and the climate crisis, and tell me that you still think it all needs to go on a single project to improve the railways.

 

[shmmeee]

But the point is that it didn't make the case to *everyone*, unless you cherry pick only the people that agree with you.

Plenty of other independent assessors questioned the value then and since. But like you once the idea that a gold-plated, fastest railway ever built, was the way forward, nothing else was considered by the various decision makers involved. HS2 or bust, basically.

If you want credible proposals then look again at the amounts involved, decide clearly what the aims are, and then plan realistically.

I'm not appealing to emotion, you're the one doing that by banging on about cranks and Brexit.

It takes about thirty seconds to find neutral, scientific opinions querying the assumptions behind HS2, even before the huge cost over-runs became apparent. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them invalid.

FactCheck Q&A: How does HS2 compare to other bullet trains?

HS2 has come under repeated criticism for bad planning and wasting money. Even the Department for Transport's own former Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Roderick Smith has called for a "root-and-branch review" of the whole project. So what's really going on? And how does the project compare...

www.channel4.com

What’s in there that’s an actual refutation of the point of HS2 though? It’s just a grab bag of “ooohhh you don’t really know”s and complaining that the cost is high. But we’ve been over and over the cost isn’t high cos it’s HS2, it’s high cos it’s Britain.

It’s been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed and delayed and delayed to add cost and each time it’s found to be needed. The very best you’ve got doesn’t even go as far as to say it should be cancelled. No one disagrees that we need to look at why construction costs are so high in this country, but to say cancel all construction projects until we figure out what is going on is a bit extreme.

I could make all your arguments against literally any infrastructure project. Some people just don’t believe in infrastructure spending. Others just don’t like spending. None of them, yourself included has any answers to the question HS2 answers.

 

[skybluetony176]

Just clocked that there’s a by-election in Scotland today. Labour and SNP vying for the win. Starmer will be like a dog with 2 dicks if the win that ahead of the Labour Party conference.

 

[clint van damme]

like a dog with 2 dicks if the win that ahead of the Labour Party conference.

That's no way to talk about Streeting and Reeves

 

[wingy]

Should have just let China get on with building it along with the ten nuclear reactors in ten year's.
Oh no can't do that, we're supposed to hate them .

 

[stupot07]

Sunak pretty much making any reversal of his plan to HS2 impossible for labour if they win the general election. Massive things like this should be done on a cross Party concensus and a free vote in the commons.

Sunak’s ‘spiteful’ sale of land intended for HS2 dashes hopes of revival

Prime minister’s move criticised as ‘salting the earth’ so Birmingham-Crewe line cannot be built

www.theguardian.com

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[shmmeee]

Sunak pretty much making any reversal of his plan to HS2 impossible for labour if they win the general election. Massive things like this should be done on a cross Party concensus and a free vote in the commons.

Sunak’s ‘spiteful’ sale of land intended for HS2 dashes hopes of revival

Prime minister’s move criticised as ‘salting the earth’ so Birmingham-Crewe line cannot be built

www.theguardian.com

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

And they shouldn’t be done with someone with possibly less than a year left in office. It’s totally reckless.

 

[Sick Boy]

I see Meloni and Sunak appear to be getting along well.

 

[clint van damme]

I see Meloni and Sunak appear to be getting along well.

No surprise given his far right roots.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Quite a big win for Labour in Scotland, though a poor turnout.

 

[David O'Day]

Quite a big win for Labour in Scotland, though a poor turnout.

turnouts are always poor at by elections

20% swing to labour which is far more than they'd even dared hope for

As John Curtice said it was a remarkably good result for Labour

 

[Deleted member 5849]

SNP's troubles are an opportunity, for sure

 

[David O'Day]

SNP's troubles are an opportunity, for sure

Seems the 2 failed governments attack like can gin traction and the SNPs defence of blaming the English Tories is starting to war thin after 15 or so years of running Scotland.

Also the current leadership seem to just not be as popular or competent.

Curtice was also saying that the opinion polls that show Labour inning easily at the next GE only predict around a 10% swing in Scotland so yes by-election, yes low turnout but it is a better result Labour would of ever hoped for.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Seems the 2 failed governments attack like can gin traction and the SNPs defence of blaming the English Tories is starting to war thin after 15 or so years of running Scotland.

Also the current leadership seem to just not be as popular or competent.

Curtice was also saying that the opinion polls that show Labour inning easily at the next GE only predict around a 10% swing in Scotland so yes by-election, yes low turnout but it is a better result Labour would of ever hoped for.

They will likely also gain a bit more on top of that swing from pro UK voters willing to vote tactically for them provided they seem like the best bet wherever they are.

 

[David O'Day]

They will likely also gain a bit more on top of that swing from pro UK voters willing to vote tactically for them provided they seem like the best bet wherever they are.

And that is the SNPs fault for having nothing to offer apart from an unachievable independence.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Sunak pretty much making any reversal of his plan to HS2 impossible for labour if they win the general election. Massive things like this should be done on a cross Party concensus and a free vote in the commons.

Sunak’s ‘spiteful’ sale of land intended for HS2 dashes hopes of revival

Prime minister’s move criticised as ‘salting the earth’ so Birmingham-Crewe line cannot be built

www.theguardian.com

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Bet Reeves is gleeful

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[CCFCSteve]

And that is the SNPs fault for having nothing to offer apart from an unachievable independence.

Considering they receive/spend significantly more per person for public sector spending (think it’s around 2k/20%) it’s an absolute shitshow up there

 

[David O'Day]

Considering they receive/spend significantly more per person for public sector spending (think it’s around 2k/20%) it’s an absolute shitshow up there

They're a failed government

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[duffer]

What’s in there that’s an actual refutation of the point of HS2 though? It’s just a grab bag of “ooohhh you don’t really know”s and complaining that the cost is high. But we’ve been over and over the cost isn’t high cos it’s HS2, it’s high cos it’s Britain.

It’s been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed and delayed and delayed to add cost and each time it’s found to be needed. The very best you’ve got doesn’t even go as far as to say it should be cancelled. No one disagrees that we need to look at why construction costs are so high in this country, but to say cancel all construction projects until we figure out what is going on is a bit extreme.

I could make all your arguments against literally any infrastructure project. Some people just don’t believe in infrastructure spending. Others just don’t like spending. None of them, yourself included has any answers to the question HS2 answers.

I don't know how many times I need to say that I've no objection to infrastructure spending, until it sinks home. Who is saying cancel all infrastructure projects?

The cost of HS2 isn't "high", it's massive.

100 billion pounds.

I don't think people get how big that number is.

Over twenty years that is almost fourteen million pounds per day.

Over half-a-million pounds per hour!

Every day, every hour, for twenty years.

HS2 would get people from a few cities, into London faster. Other cities will lose some of their direct services to London (notably, Coventry).

HS2 would likely improve capacity on local railway services, though investment beyond the 100bn would be required to see the full benefit.

Similarly with freight, of which it might take a small proportion off the motorways, but again further investment still required to see even that full benefit. So just the 100bn doesn't get you all of this, there's still more needed after that.

You've got no answer to how that 100 billion, were we to spend it elsewhere, might benefit the rest of the country.

 

[shmmeee]

I don't know how many times I need to say that I've no objection to infrastructure spending, until it sinks home. Who is saying cancel all infrastructure projects?

The cost of HS2 isn't "high", it's massive.

100 billion pounds.

I don't think people get how big that number is.

Over twenty years that is almost fourteen million pounds per day.

Over half-a-million pounds per hour!

Every day, every hour, for twenty years.

HS2 would get people from a few cities, into London faster. Other cities will lose some of their direct services to London (notably, Coventry).

HS2 would likely improve capacity on local railway services, though investment beyond the 100bn would be required to see the full benefit.

Similarly with freight, of which it might take a small proportion off the motorways, but again further investment still required to see even that full benefit. So just the 100bn doesn't get you all of this, there's still more needed after that.

You've got no answer to how that 100 billion, were we to spend it elsewhere, might benefit the rest of the country.

Yes. Running a country is expensive. It involves big numbers.

We have told our political leaders that we want this. We don’t want anything built until everyone has had a say and it’s spent a decade in planning. We can just not want expensive infra and accept it’s more important than Mrs Biggs garden or a family of newts.

 

[shmmeee]

Honestly @duffer i can’t believe you’ve bought the whole thing hook line and sinker. You’re out here believing a Tory PM saying he’s going to spend this on local transport. A third of it is for potholes! Some of the things he’s promised opened in 2015! Others he cancelled himself just last year.

 

[duffer]

And that's me done on HS2. I appreciate others differ but for me it was flawed and hugely over-expensive from the start, with original cost/benefit justifications based on completely made up figures. And then it got worse.

 

[shmmeee]

The story here is we’ve cancelled a needed national infrastructure problem as a country with massive productivity and economic balance issues, so that a terrible PM can offer tax cuts next year.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I don't know how many times I need to say that I've no objection to infrastructure spending, until it sinks home. Who is saying cancel all infrastructure projects?

The cost of HS2 isn't "high", it's massive.

100 billion pounds.

I don't think people get how big that number is.

Over twenty years that is almost fourteen million pounds per day.

Over half-a-million pounds per hour!

Every day, every hour, for twenty years.

HS2 would get people from a few cities, into London faster. Other cities will lose some of their direct services to London (notably, Coventry).

HS2 would likely improve capacity on local railway services, though investment beyond the 100bn would be required to see the full benefit.

Similarly with freight, of which it might take a small proportion off the motorways, but again further investment still required to see even that full benefit. So just the 100bn doesn't get you all of this, there's still more needed after that.

You've got no answer to how that 100 billion, were we to spend it elsewhere, might benefit the rest of the country.

I find it incredibly weird that an apparently left wing person is against large scale infrastructure spending. Anyway, you've got your way now and it's cancelled and a load of at best maintenance schemes are proposed instead.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I find it incredibly weird that an apparently left wing person is against large scale infrastructure spending. Anyway, you've got your way now and it's cancelled and a load of at best maintenance schemes are proposed instead.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

I’d support large infrastructure spending. I don’t support using it to get to London 10 minutes quicker while ripping up vast swathes of countryside.

 

[shmmeee]

I’d support large infrastructure spending. I don’t support using it to get to London 10 minutes quicker while ripping up vast swathes of countryside.

Cool. Same. If a project ever comes up where that’s the point we’ll both be against it.

And how exactly do we build infrastructure without damaging fields?

 

[shmmeee]

Fucking decel managed decline crap. Makes me ashamed to be British. Let’s just stick the country in aspic and get slowly poorer. We can’t build anything. Can’t do anything. Just fix a couple of potholes.

Brexit was supposed to be a moment of national pride and confidence and it’s been the exact opposite.

 

[duffer]

Honestly @duffer i can’t believe you’ve bought the whole thing hook line and sinker. You’re out here believing a Tory PM saying he’s going to spend this on local transport. A third of it is for potholes! Some of the things he’s promised opened in 2015! Others he cancelled himself just last year.

I don't trust the Tories any more than you mate. I've always been of this opinion in regards to HS2. Of course Sunak is probably lying about using the money elsewhere, but I still think the whole thing is an enormous waste of money.

Not big numbers, *vast* numbers. No other infrastructure project even comes close.

I've got to leave it mate, I don't want to fall out with you. I respect we differ, I'll leave it at that.

 

[duffer]

I find it incredibly weird that an apparently left wing person is against large scale infrastructure spending. Anyway, you've got your way now and it's cancelled and a load of at best maintenance schemes are proposed instead.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Jesus, where did I say that I'm against large-scale infrastructure spending.

Put me in charge and we'll have an awful lot more renewable energy investment, and maybe the odd gigafactory. Boris can finally have his forty new hospitals, and we need a lot of schools building and fixing.

We'll get on with building a bit more social housing, and put in substantial grants for insulating existing homes.

And that's just the start. You could get quite a lot of that done for 100 billion, though perhaps not all of it. I'm afraid the very wealthy and the corporation tax dodgers might need to chip in a bit more too.

 

[clint van damme]

What I don't understand is why he's now closed the door for Starmer to build HS2?

I would have thought he'd have been better leaving the door open and using the high costs as a stick to beat Labour with if they went ahead?

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

What I don't understand is why he's now closed the door for Starmer to build HS2?

I would have thought he'd have been better leaving the door open and using the high costs as a stick to beat Labour with if they went ahead?

Maybe all his buddies got the early nod on the all the re-released land formerly CPO'd...... bargain.

 

[fatso]

I don't know how many times I need to say that I've no objection to infrastructure spending, until it sinks home. Who is saying cancel all infrastructure projects?

The cost of HS2 isn't "high", it's massive.

100 billion pounds.

I don't think people get how big that number is.

Over twenty years that is almost fourteen million pounds per day.

Over half-a-million pounds per hour!

Every day, every hour, for twenty years.

HS2 would get people from a few cities, into London faster. Other cities will lose some of their direct services to London (notably, Coventry).

HS2 would likely improve capacity on local railway services, though investment beyond the 100bn would be required to see the full benefit.

Similarly with freight, of which it might take a small proportion off the motorways, but again further investment still required to see even that full benefit. So just the 100bn doesn't get you all of this, there's still more needed after that.

You've got no answer to how that 100 billion, were we to spend it elsewhere, might benefit the rest of the country.

I've been saying from the start, what the fuck is the point of a slightly faster train, when every summer the South faces a hosepipe ban and a water shortage?

Water supply is going to get worse in the future, so surely we should be investing in reservoirs and upgrading all the leaking pipework.

When the water issue is solved, the next major project needs to be the power supply network. Power generation needs to be upgraded immediately if we are serious about moving away from fossil fuel.

Then there is care for the growing number of elderly people.

Ageing and over worked Hospitals

Crumbling roads

Insufficient affordable housing

Collapsing schools

Victorian sewage systems

Etc etc etc

I mean seriously, who the fuck prioritised a fucking train???

 

[fernandopartridge]

I’d support large infrastructure spending. I don’t support using it to get to London 10 minutes quicker while ripping up vast swathes of countryside.

It is not the sole or even primary purpose of HS2

 

[fernandopartridge]

I've been saying from the start, what the fuck is the point of a slightly faster train, when every summer the South faces a hosepipe ban and a water shortage?

Water supply is going to get worse in the future, so surely we should be investing in reservoirs and upgrading all the leaking pipework.

When the water issue is solved, the next major project needs to be the power supply network. Power generation needs to be upgraded immediately if we are serious about moving away from fossil fuel.

Then there is care for the growing number of elderly people.

Ageing and over worked Hospitals

Crumbling roads

Insufficient affordable housing

Collapsing schools

Victorian sewage systems

Etc etc etc

I mean seriously, who the fuck prioritised a fucking train???

Pay for it all plus the train like any ordinary functioning rich nation would