This.
It’s not just HS2. If you look closely at Hunt’s budgets, you’ll see there are a number of areas where things have been delayed or deferred for this reason.
On one level, Tories don’t expect to win the next general election. So if they can make these things Labour’s problems and make Labour look bad, it helps kneecap Labour and boost Tory hopes for the following election.
Wait for labour to have to be the one to ‘kill’ HS2, then make a massive show of how Labour have betrayed the North etc after years of Tory ‘dedication’ to the project.
I don’t think that’s the point. This tweet illustrates the issue HS2 is trying to fix really well. This isn’t about London, this is about fixing the problem London has caused the north.
https://twitter.com/jenonthemoveuk/status/1633803798975066112?s=46&t=1K7c_wzsidBO0cgMbEQJaw
I mean what you’re asking for sounds a hell of a lot like HS2.
By removing the express services from the WCML you open up the ability to run some of the services you’ve listed and at a higher frequency.
Like, don’t get me wrong, the scheme isn’t perfect, and it really hasn’t been advertised well, but at the core of it all is still a very very good idea.
It doesn’t have to be an either/or.
There’s a huge amount of passengers and freight that needs to run between London and the North and the existing rail infrastructure doesn’t cope well with them. It needs a dedicated, modern line at some point.
Cancelling or delaying HS2 won’t suddenly produce a larger infrastructure budget for other rail projects, though. There’s still a lot of other projects needed on the railways, but HS2 will help solve a lot of the issues with local passenger services and capacity a well as providing a proper freight service.
So whilst Europe whips about on some of the fastest trains in the world, we’re going to still be faffing about with Avanti West Coast for years to come.
Well done everyone.
Just build the effing thing.
I’m very much, from having spoken to friends and relatives in the north, very much in camp “HS2 isn’t the most important thing for the north”.
What they really need is a working West-East railway connecting the major cities of the north properly. The stories I hear about the TransPennine Express are awful, and make it sound like the worst service in the UK by a country mile. Services are cancelled so frequently it’s impossible to live in one city and work in another if you’re going to be relying on it.
Unfortunately, ‘levelling up’ money promised to the ‘Red Wall’ areas for improving this service was taken away again and reallocated to HS2 instead. What a waste.
What they really need is a working West-East railway connecting the major cities of the north properly. The stories I hear about the TransPennine Express are awful, and make it sound like the worst service in the UK by a country mile.
It is truly awful. But I’m not sure infrastructure is the solution. Extremely poor management seems to be the most pressing factor.
Again though, I really don’t think it has to be mutually exclusive. If both HS2 and and a West-East railway line are economically beneficial there’s no reason you can’t build both at the same time. I doubt the money was ‘given to HS2’, the reality is the Tories were just never going to spend properly on the North.
Broadly speaking, I think investment is the solution. Whether that’s spent on better management, more trains, or improved infrastructure, I’m not qualified to judge. But none of that can be done without investment.
Cynical, but probably fair. Easy to shuffle some figures on paper and say “We’re investing in the North!” to make the former Red Wall constituencies feel better about their votes. Easier still to delay spending any of it until you can shuffle the figures again to return the money to solid blue areas in the south instead.
Never forget: Rishi Sunak went to Tunbridge Wells and bragged to everyone present that he had done exactly that:
“We inherited a bunch of formulas from Labour that shoved all the funding into deprived urban areas and that needed to be undone. I started the work of undoing that.”
I guess part of the problem is that these different investments come from different places.
Infrastructure is a more straightforward government investment.
Management and rolling stock is privatised and up to companies and shareholders. The govt. could grant them extra money but it goes against their privatisation ethos.
Firstly, such a misleading headline from The Guardian. Wild Isles was always a 5 part series. The other episode is something based on it from the RSPB and the WWF. The BBC acquired the rights for it to air on iPlayer and never intended for it to air on TV.
And secondly, I think the BBC has handled this situation terribly. It seems they are happy with him having opinions, as long as they are the right opinions.
100% aware this is a controversial comment now, but prefaced with the fact that I agree with him and generally have no issue with BBC presenters expressing their opinions in a private/off air scenario:
If he had agreed with the government and wanted a hardline approach to immigration then I’d bet good money the same people angered at the BBC now would be outraged if the BBC did nothing in that scenario
Gary Linker’s been cancelled? I’m sure the “cancel culture gone mad!” mob will be along soon enough to stand up for him, right? Right?
This will always be the case, won’t it? If you’re employed in a public role for any organisation, that organisation will want you to be seen in a favourable light. We’ll never get away from that.
The thing that’s got Lineker into particular trouble is not just his criticism of government, but his comparisons with Nazi Germany. I wouldn’t want Lineker to be sacked for a single tweet, but I can see why the BBC is a bit uncomfortable about giving him so much air time when he’s sticking by his comments about 1930s Germany.
Lineker:
Those who are complaining that “Lineker is calling us Nazis!” are rather telling on themselves.
Also, a German weighs in:
I don’t know that this really matters? The 1930s German government was, from 1933, the nazi party. He’s specifically mentioning 1930s Germany because of the oppressive regime, isn’t he? And that was the nazi party. Famous for, among other things, the holocaust. (If I’ve got this wrong, and he’s referencing some other aspect of 1930s Germany, please feel free to enlighten me.)
Not that I actually care too much about Lineker’s views on this. I quite like him tbh but equally I’m not surprised that the BBC are getting a bit twitched about their highest paid star causing political controversy.
The whole Lineker debate fits firmly into the “storm in a teacup” category in my mind.
He was allowed to comment on the situation in Qatar but isn’t allowed to make a statement about what his own country is doing. It is ridiculous.
What the government is doing is similar to what happened in 1930s Germany. Should people just shut up about comparisons because it makes others uncomfortable or should we highlight them to make sure we stop going down the path of 1930s Germany?
The Nazi party wasn’t suddenly in power and bringing in super oppressive policies. It took time. It started with smaller things that weren’t good, but people just sat by and let happen. Much of that was about the dehumanisation of vulnerable people, which is exactly what is happening here. The Tories are demonising people, many of which will be victims, and wanting to take away their rights.
We can’t draw direct comparisons to 1930s Germany, but the language being used is similar. We should be calling it out, not hiding away from it.
And because they can’t seem to find anyone to replace him, MOTD won’t have any studio presenters or pundits.
Ooh we might actually get to watch some football then instead of listening to people talking about 
