Off Topic Political Debate

I see HS2 has been mentioned. HS2 was a spiteful vanity project of Scottish Labour MPs who wanted to muck up the southern Tory shires, its one aim. It has nothing to do with reducing journey times or development of corridors along its route; the proposal was it will stop in few enough places.

What is truly awful is that the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition have picked this scheme up and are running with/forcing it through parliment and not seeing it for what it is. Why not renovate what we have thoughly, instead of maintaining a service that is collapsing for those not served by HS2 (all travellers not travelling between the major cities) and adding another completely new system over the top?

If you want to travel from Stockport to Birmingham, Banbury to London or Darlington to Sheffield it will not help you, unless you travel to Manchester, Birmingham or Newcastle respectively, first.

 

Why doesn't somebody step back and look at the real needs for the next 50 years and build and plan our transport system, our energy system, our food system and our water and waste systems properly? We need rail for freight, we can use the canals for heavy non urgent freight, we need better airports, we need better in city transport systems not based around the car but better the bicycle and mass transit systems, we need better water distribution, we need to upgrade the sewer systems, we need better energy generation planning and distribution, all of these things get de-prioritized as they can't be fixed in a single government term....

 

I'm sorry Bragantino but your comments on HS2 are so way off the mark as to be surreal. You seem to be a victim of the anti-HS2 disinformation brigade. "HS2 was a spiteful vanity project of Scottish Labour MPs who wanted to muck up the southern Tory shires, its one aim" - where on earth did you get this from?. HS2 is supported by all three major political parties - it is in no way a "vanity" project, but one that is essential for this country to be competitive in the 21st century.

HS2 is all about increasing rail capacity to meet the projected traffic (both passenger and freight) from the mid 2020s onwards. To answer your question as to "Why not renovate what we have thoroughly", well Network Rail expect to spend £38 billion over the period 2015 to 2020 having spent almost that some between 2010 and 2014.

As for your assertion that "If you want to travel from Stockport to Birmingham, Banbury to London or Darlington to Sheffield it will not help you, unless you travel to Manchester, Birmingham or Newcastle respectively, first", there are already direct, fast, half-hourly trains between Stockport and Birmingham (Cross Country Trains), at between Banbury and London (Chiltern Trains) and Darlington to Sheffield (again Cross Country Trains). By moving services to HS2 and freeing capacity on the traditional lines, these (and many other similar services) can be considerably improved and speeded up, together with increasing freight capacity.

I repeat what I said earlier in this thread: ...if you look at all the detail on HS2, you will find that the intention is not just to link London and Birmingham, but also link Birmingham with Manchester, Nottingham, Leeds and Newcastle. Osborne has also floated the idea of an HS3 linking Leeds and Manchester in addition to the already planned electrification of the existing Leeds Manchester Trans-Pennine route.

HS2 is not a railway simply to cut 15 minutes off the London Birmingham railway travel time, it is all about the capacity (or lack of it) to cope with the projected increases in passenger travel between London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds etc. - all cities who actively support HS2. Glasgow and Edinburgh are campaigning for their cities to be joined to HS2 sooner rather than later.

It is about investing in this country's transport infrastructure, as France, Germany, Spain, Italy, China and even the USA are doing with their high-speed lines.

The railways in Britain (and especially HS2) are a special interest for me, I have to admit. It shouldn't do, but it does make my blood boil when I see and hear ill-informed and ill-judged comments and criticism being made about the railways, particularly in the media. There have been decades of under investment, starting from before Beeching incidentally, when we were still building steam engines into the 1960s when most other countries had started to (and some completed) the move to diesel and electric traction. (Margaret Thatcher apparently hated the railways and only travelled on them once during her time as PM. But it was neglect by all governments in the face of a powerful road lobby.

Far from "a service that is collapsing for those not served by HS2", the service has improved immeasurably over the last 10 years, it is the Victorian infrastructure that needs improving. But there is a limit to the amount of improvement you can make to the existing system.

The government (of all hues) have at last realised that rail transport has an increasingly important role to play in the transport needs of Britain in the 21st century. I often hear the cry that rather than spend money on a "vanity" project, they should be spending it on improving the current infrastructure. The fact is that Network Rail is doing just that - anyone who has been to London Bridge, Manchester Victoria or Reading stations will see this. Network Rail expect to spend around £38 billion in the next 5 years on improving the current rail facilities - that is without factoring in the billions to be spent on new rolling stock for the Great Western, East Coast Main Lines, Thameslink and Crossrail. It is not an either HS2 or current network decision. Both are needed.

Existing lines (like the West Coast Main Line through Watford) cannot be significantly further improved to cope with the expected traffic (passenger and freight) in the 2020s. Can you imagine adding an extra 2 lines to Bushey Arches, through the Junction and a third Watford Tunnel, let alone Hemel, Berko and Leighton Buzzard! Yet this is what people are effectively advocating!

Bragantino, I'm not sure how often you travel by rail. I do and am amazed by the sheer efficiency of Network Rail and the Train Operating Companies in the face of lack of capacity and Victorian infrastructure. Before making such outlandish claims about the state of our railways, please read up on the strenuous efforts being made to improve them - including HS2.

 

You answer your own question really Aberdeen - "they can't be fixed in a single government term" With first past the post we are doomed to the endless cycle of Tory - Lab - Tory - Lab. In those circumstance political parties are more worried about their next term than they are about our future. PR is not an answer to all ills but it does force compromise and is more likely to allow competent governments to hope they can stay in power for longer than one or two terms - albeit with partners. When people are crying out for immediate improvements to NHS, benefits and the like how easy is it to allocate funds for 30 years hence. To that extent HS2 is an unusual example of a project that will deliver no benefits in the next few terms of government - that is why it needed all three main political parties to support it.

 

Hallelujah! Thanks Leo. Although there will be some benefit in that the construction of the line over the next 15 to 20 years and also the education and training facilities that are being set up will deliver some employment before the line is actually opened. I also believe that the impetus is there to build and open the line much sooner than is currently forecast.

But the main point made by Aberdeen is valid - the need to "step back and look at the real needs". Many pressure groups do purport to do this - unfortunately most are in the grip of vested interests. The road lobby, the oil industry, the big 5 supermarkets etc. etc. We simply do not have the governmental structure to counter these short term pressures.

 

How do other countries manage to take a longer term view - without Dictatorships

 

Strikes.

I genuinely don't have a clue but wish i did as i'd stand for Parliament myself.

 

I paid under £1.10 per litre for petrol today - a few months ago I paid more than £1.40.

A little wicked part of me wondered what Alex Salmond would be having nightmares about now that the price of oil had halved - seems his financial calculations might be slightly affected and his claims the the English "Establishment" were just dreaming up scare stories were not totally accurate

 

Ssshhhh Leo, I fear you may awaken Spurf!

 

Oh dear - did not think of that

 

Oh how quickly we forget - or did we not fully read in the first place?

Oil revenue was always seen as a bonus as the country can stand on it's own two feet without it;

If Yes had prevailed, the current oil price would be the UK's headache as Independence would still be at least 15 months away - and it's strange how it isn't particularly viewed in that way at the moment;

And whilst I know nothing about the oil industry, even I can predict that the current price is just as likely to rise as it is to fall.

So you're right on one point - his financial calculations may have been slightly affected. But wrong on the other - the 'Establishment ' were most certainly dreaming up scare stories, and still are...

 

Oh how gullible we can be.

Oil revenues, as economist will explain, were certainly NOT a bonus nor the icing on the cake. Go and do the maths and see the income and expenditure predictions for an independent Scotland. They needed every penny of them to create the economy they pretended was viable - but of course could never admit that.

Further more the oil price is simply NOT a UK headache as it is such a small percentage of our revenue -unlike an independent Scotland. Predicting a higher price in the future would not have helped the SNP in the slightest as it is the damage done by the now factual fluctuation in price and hence revenue and tax proceeds that would have prevented the Scots getting a decent interest rate on borrowings - never mind their shortfall in tax income - a Scottish NHS - blown out the water

 

Having never belonged to any political party, I am now seriously thinking of joining the Green party.... anyone want to give me a counter argument?

 

Not at all - they are experiencing a membership surge across the UK at the moment. Strange though how the BBC are resistant towards including them in 'The Great Debate' when the Greens outnumber UKIP, yet they welcome the likes of Farage & Clegg with open arms.

 

yes strange eh.... and very disproportionate of them..

 

I you decide to do this Yorkie - then let me know because I have been a member of the German Green Party (Bundnis 90 die Grünen) for the last 5 years.

 

I am more and more convinced of their policies..... it means a real mind set change for me in relation to my neo-liberalism.... i.e. as long as I am all right and we don't have a right wing govt etc. etc...... BUT the global situation is so bad now..... we have to change....

 

I am rather attracted by a lot of the Green policies, but they seem rather naive in a lot of areas and probably need to take a more pragmatic view if they wish to become more mainstream. I absolutely agree with the need to massively increase and improve public transport, but to expect large swathes of the population to switch to public transport very quickly is not practical - it should be positioned as a longer term goal. Where I agree with them is the repositioning our economy to become more locally focussed, encourage the consumption of local goods and services, particularly food - big reductions in food miles should be a focus.

 

yes agree re naiviety...... bit like the old liberals in some ways

But economy needs to change, plus all the environment factors.

I cant think they will ever get enough votes in the coming years to be anything more than a pressure group.... but I am mightily fed up with Cameron's party.. which moves to the right every time it gets into power.... the current labour setup... seems ineffectual..... Clegg... well enough said..... and I would never vote for the beer swiller..

 

Good telly but more importantly ratings. The Beeb look less and less like a public service broadcaster every year.