Hot Topics

HS2 Is it necessary at this time?

  bremner 12:20 21 Aug 2019
Locked

The government his two review whether we really need HS2 BBC Article

I cannot support a scheme to get some quicker to Manchester or Birmingham, that is likely to cost in excess of £100B at a time when:

  • The NHS and social care, education, policing, fire services, local government etc etc are massively underfunded.
  • The one train line into Cornwall is regularly out of action due to it passing so close to the sea.
  • Many rural communities have broadband that struggles to reach 4Mb

My list could go on and on.

What do you think?

  Quickbeam 19:23 23 Aug 2019

Ditch cars to meet climate change targets say MPs.

And in the next breath they don't want to pay for the alternative that would be needed.

But then again they don't know what they want with Brexit, so we shouldn't be surprised that they contradict themselves over HS2...

  Quickbeam 19:31 23 Aug 2019

They had a rail man on the radio today that explained why the capacity is a problem:

As trains get faster, they need an ever increasing length of safe, but dead rail space in front of them. Move the fastest trains off of the existing network, and that network can then operate at the same efficiency as it was intended to when 80 mph was considered to be a very fast speed.

An interestingly simples explanation I thought.

  morddwyd 10:01 24 Aug 2019

The last place to need major investment is London and the South East.

HS2 should run north from Birmingham - Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle.

Invest in the northern powerhouse, not the southeastern sponge.

  Pine Man 10:32 24 Aug 2019

Invest in the northern powerhouse, not the southeastern sponge.

Ahh the old north/south divide rears it's ugly head!

When the north pays it's fair share like the south, then they can complain.

  Dunk 12:17 24 Aug 2019

Pine Man

"When the North pays it's fair share.....", of what, exactly? I didn't realise we had different taxation systems in different regions of England.

  Pine Man 12:44 24 Aug 2019

I didn't realise we had different taxation systems in different regions of England.

It's not about taxation it's about the significantly cheaper cost of living in the north generally and, before you shout, that includes wages.

  Dunk 13:09 24 Aug 2019

Pine Man

"...and, before you shout,...."

Firstly, I have never had a predisposition to "shout", so I'm not quite sure why that remark was needed. Secondly, I didn't actually see any answer to my actual query, which was " a fair share of what, exactly"?

Care to take another swing at it?

  Pine Man 13:51 24 Aug 2019

Care to take another swing at it?

...yes but not a shout.

Don't be too quick to take offence. I merely used the word shout to avoid a response based on wage differences. Nothing more, nothing less.

I used to live in the northwest of England and moved to the southeast. Having done so I found a significant difference in the cost of living, which was not ameliorated by an increase in wages. I am happy to continue living in the south and accept the additional cost that it involves. Also, I am told, have been blessed with a higher standard of living associated with those costs.

One assumes that if the north wants the same as the south it will come at a cost and, who knows, the divide may close.

To put the whole thing into context I was merely responding to morddwyd's comment on the south eastern sponge.

Now I'm out into the sun, which is hotter in the southeast but not necessarily better!

  Dunk 17:42 24 Aug 2019

pine man

Sorry, but that is still not answering my question. The south of England benefits greatly from all sorts of public expenditure (particularly in London), Crossrail, sewers, Heathrow, Thames Barrier etc etc - which are paid for out of general taxation from all of us, North and South.

morddwyd is correct, England is unbalanced between N and S.

Does Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds etc get the same level of spending as London?

It really is about taxation, since that is the only money which Parliament can decide where to spend. It's a choice, so why does the SE get the biggest share of 'public' projects, which then increases employment , then house prices?

  Forum Editor 18:19 24 Aug 2019

Dunk

"The south of England benefits greatly from all sorts of public expenditure (particularly in London), Crossrail, sewers, Heathrow, Thames Barrier etc etc - which are paid for out of general taxation from all of us, North and South."

Well, let's look at some facts, shall we?

In the 2015/2016 tax year, every Londoner provided £3,070 more in tax revenues than he or she received in public spending, while people living in the south-east ran a surplus of £1,670 per head.

Tax receipts per head in London of £15,750 were almost double those in the north-east region where each person contributed £8,200. As far as public spending goes, it was actually greater per head than tax receipts in every UK region except London, the south-east and the east of England.

Put simply, London and the South East subsidises the rest of the UK. There are reasons for it of course - the City of London finance sector being the main one - but it might be better to check the facts before making sweeping statements about who pays for what.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

1x1 pixel
Elsewhere on IDG sites

Samsung's new Galaxy Book Flex borrows the Note 10's S Pen

All the Creative Live Streams that'll save 2020

macOS 10.15.5 causes backup problems

French Days 2020 : dates, sites participants & bons plans