The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[Genie]

HS2 is like Brexit, it never goes away because it’s not a particularly good idea.

If it was, someone would have been able to put the arguments of cost versus benefit to bed a long time ago.

[KentVillan]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

HS2 is like Brexit, it never goes away because it’s not a particularly good idea.

If it was, someone would have been able to put the arguments of cost versus benefit to bed a long time ago.

Disagree. There is a long history of major public transport projects (London Underground, Channel Tunnel, Heathrow expansion, TGV in France, etc) bringing economic benefits. You can argue about the details, but conceptually the idea of a new high speed railway line bringing long term economic benefits has plenty of sound evidence to back it up.

Whereas unilaterally leaving a trade agreement with your main trading partners was very much uncharted territory.

[tinker]

13 minutes ago, Genie said:

HS2 is like Brexit, it never goes away because it’s not a particularly good idea.

If it was, someone would have been able to put the arguments of cost versus benefit to bed a long time ago.

The argument it will free up local trains is also misleading,  it will free up lines on the London bound trains from smaller towns , benefitting....London.

The money would have been better spent on a local network of trains in the big cities, as London have shown with their underground, cross rail and other huge infrastructure projects benefitting them.

The next huge project will be sea defenses for London which at the present rate will need doing to prevent the whole money magnet going under when the tide and wind are pushing in the right or wrong direction.

Edited March 9, 2023 by tinker

[KentVillan]

5 minutes ago, tinker said:

The argument it will free up local trains is also misleading,  it will free up lines on the London bound trains from smaller towns , benefitting....London.

The money would have been better spent on a local network of trains in the big cities, as London have shown with their underground, cross rail and other huge infrastructure projects benefitting them.

The next huge project will be sea defenses for London which at the present rate will need doing to prevent the whole money magnet going under when the tide and wind are pushing in the right or wrong direction.

Surely a train departing from or terminating  in London doesn’t just benefit London… 

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Which law is that? I don’t think there’s any “illegal immigrant” category in law, except perhaps in the new bill put forward by Braverman

July last year, they changed the law and the HoC defines people who have entered the UK without authority as illegal immigrants

I agree with your general comment, mind. And I also have it in mind that (counter to what Braverman is trying to get through) the method of entry into a country cannot be used to deny or prevent asylum being claimed.

 

[Genie]

10 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Disagree. There is a long history of major public transport projects (London Underground, Channel Tunnel, Heathrow expansion, TGV in France, etc) bringing economic benefits. You can argue about the details, but conceptually the idea of a new high speed railway line bringing long term economic benefits has plenty of sound evidence to back it up.

Whereas unilaterally leaving a trade agreement with your main trading partners was very much uncharted territory.

Well yes, do you want a new high speed rail line? Yes please.

We’ll be carving up the country, evicting lots of people, demolishing their homes, destroying historic countryside and nature, years of destruction, maintenance , road closures, mess, etc etc etc, oh and it’s gonna cost north of £77 billion and not do what it was supposed to at the start… oh in that case maybe it’s not the no brainer I thought it was. 

[KentVillan]

6 minutes ago, Genie said:

Well yes, do you want a new high speed rail line? Yes please.

We’ll be carving up the country, evicting lots of people, demolishing their homes, destroying historic countryside and nature, years of destruction, maintenance , road closures, mess, etc etc etc, oh and it’s gonna cost north of £77 billion and not do what it was supposed to at the start… oh in that case maybe it’s not the no brainer I thought it was. 

And the alternative is what? Widening motorways? Building more runways? People present these arguments as if there is a way of just freezing society and the countryside and all the other things they love in a moment in time. But demand for transport, jobs and homes keeps going up, so something has to be built somewhere!?

[Genie]

3 hours ago, KentVillan said:

And the alternative is what? Widening motorways? Building more runways? People present these arguments as if there is a way of just freezing society and the countryside and all the other things they love in a moment in time. But demand for transport, jobs and homes keeps going up, so something has to be built somewhere!?

I’m ok with widening motorways that everyone can use and be far cheaper

[Wainy316]

I think they should just move us all out to Greenland or something for 5 years and just rebuild the entire infrastructure of the UK from scratch. 

[KentVillan]

13 minutes ago, Genie said:

I’m ok with widening motorways that everyone can use and be far cheaper

I thought you were worried about destroying historic countryside and nature?

[markavfc40]

Channel 4 Dispatches tonight showing what these bastards have done to our NHS.

Edited March 9, 2023 by markavfc40

[Lichfield Dean]

12 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

I think they should just move us all out to Greenland or something for 5 years and just rebuild the entire infrastructure of the UK from scratch. 

Oh man, you mean I have to wait 25 years for a half-built rail system that doesn't actually manage to reach its destination?

[foreveryoung]

4 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

Channel 4 Dispatches tonight showing what these bastards have done to our NHS.

An what the lazy ***** directors and managers haven't  done.

[Genie]

17 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I thought you were worried about destroying historic countryside and nature?

It’ll be less intrusive widening existing infrastructure then cutting an all new channel through the country, plus stations etc.

And much cheaper.

And could be done in multiple places around the country.

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Genie

[bickster]

34 minutes ago, Genie said:

I’m ok with widening motorways that everyone can use and be far cheaper

Far cheaper that what?

[sidcow]

10 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

An what the lazy ***** directors and managers haven't  done.

 

 

[Genie]

44 minutes ago, bickster said:

Far cheaper that what?

HS2 = £77b for a total of 330 miles, £233m per mile.

Widening the M1 spiralled out of control with the 240 mile project costing £5.1b, or £21m per mile. 

So 10 stretches / 2,400 miles of motorway across the country could be widened and still have change over the cost of HS2.

[markavfc40]

This guy, like many of us, has the Tories sussed.

 

[Genie]

7 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

This guy, like many of us, has the Tories sussed.

 

Yep, nailed it.

It’s not designed to work, it’s designed to create more division ahead of them being booted out.

Scum is too kind to describe them.

[Jareth]

Sunak has struck a deal with the French, paying £480 million squid over the next 3 years, to basically 'Stop The Boats!' - i.e. in the only way that works, getting the French to prevent the people crossing in the first place by giving them the money and incentive to do so. Bit by bit we are building back the relationship we had with Europe pre-Brexit, but this one in particular has been cloaked in xenophobic outer wrapping to satisfy the brexit loving Brits - while in reality the meat of it is simply what we used to do. If only the tories could just get on with the job, also like the NI protocol - without having to dress it up as something else - I think most people would take kindly to that.