@molgrips - how does Crossrail benefit pensioners outside the SE? Poodle walkers in Paisley? Day care staff in Derby?
molgrips, some facts...
HS2 phase 1, if built, will be only the second section of true high speed rail infrastructure in the UK.
It will add about 110 miles to the existing 67 miles represented by HS1 so a total of 177 miles.
To make the maths easy, assume standard gauge network in UK is 10,000 miles (it's more
than that) so 177 miles of high speed is 1.77% of the network.
That doesn't represent a high speed network covering the whole of the country.
There is no tangible benefit for the North in my y lifetime. HS2 is like Crossrail, we’ve all paid for it but over 80% of the population will never use it
The actual benefits of Crossrail aren't to the people who use it, getting into London from Reading you wouldn't get Crossrail, you'd get the GWR trains. Which now run much faster as they're not sharing the lines with the stopping trains.
Even just the Heathrow link was badly needed, it was bonkers that the only way you could get in/out of one of the busiest airports in the world except by car was to get a Bus from Reading, or get the train into London, and then back out again. Still a faff, but better than the busses.
Honestly I don't think anyone is saying train links aren't needed I just think they started in the end.
That doesn’t represent a high speed network covering the whole of the country.
PART of a high speed network. It's a network, that's the point. As per the cycleway example earlier - you need all of it, little bits on their own are no good. Same goes for Crossrail. Having a good transport network benefits people all over the country. People like me for example who can live in Cardiff and travel to work all over the country. If the trains are better I am far more likely to take the train than drive, which means more road capacity for everyone else and less pollution, and less diesel bought which makes that cheaper for everyone else. Same goes for freight too. Don't like loads of lorries on your roads? This is how you fix it. Don't like motorways tearing across the landscape? Same.
And for all those benefits you need a complete network that goes everywhere. That means in, out of and across London, unfortunately, because the reality is that loads of businesses and people are already there, AS WELL as all the other places it needs to go.
We need a complete network, and that includes the bit between London and Birmingham and the bit across London. Or around it, for that matter. Same reason we need an M25.
Hs1 & 2 do not constitute the network you referred to.
There is no likelihood of a national high speed network in the next 100 years.
London already has adequate rail connectivity - definitely in contrast to the rest of the country.
The economy is overly dependant on London & SE.
Inadequate and slow speed rail in the rest of the UK is a drag on economic performance; that economic underperformance was going to be (partially) addressed by the Integrated Rail Plan which has now been shelved.
HS2, if completed, will have a marginal impact on road freight.
As I posted earlier any plans to increase rail freight require more access to lines and more freight terminals.
The biggest folly of HS2 on top of the many already discussed is that it terminates at the wrong station in London. If HS2 is supposed to be the beginnings of a UK high speed rail network why is it not linking into HS1? Surely the whole point is that you should get onto HS2 and in theory HS3 4 etc and be linked directly via HS1 to the European high speed rail network, Not have to get off the train in London, get onto the Tube, cross London to St Pancras to find the next trail. You should be able to go either straight in and out of St Pancras or even direct Birmingham / Manchester to Paris / Brussels etc non stop. It would have the further advantage of becoming a real competitor to flying
I don’t necessarily want a high speed train journey.
I quite like relaxing letting the train take the strain 😀 , reading a book, watching something on the iPad , having a drink , something to eat etc.
What I want is to be able to pay a reasonable price for that journey , not the extortionate rate it is now. It’s certainly not going to get any cheaper is it ?
Cheaper rail fares?
Heaven forfend!!!
, Not have to get off the train in London, get onto the Tube, cross London to St Pancras to find the next trail.
I was under the impression that the two stations were going to be combined into "euston st pancreas" with some underground platforms. edit - it appears thats only part of crossrail 2
its not straight through because (aiui) they don't want more stations built to the european standard instead of ours. I doubt many people really want to get on a 6 hour jouney from brum to paris anyway, when flying is so much faster. Shaving a 30 min connection off that won't make a massive difference
But Brum to Paris could be <4hrs if HSx was implemented correctly
The same time as Manchester to Sheffield at present then?
But what's the demand for that?
Great that you could probably fill a few trains of people on a friday night going away for a romantic weekend, but the business case for it would need full trains all day every day.
The same time as Manchester to Sheffield at present then?
In context, that's a 50min train journey to do ~40 miles (by road). And according to the trainline I can jump on one in a hours time for £9.50*.
Reading to Paddington is also 40 miles by road and takes 1h05min*. And according to the trainline it will cost me £23
*Varies from that to £14, upto £24 on a handfull of trains.
**via Crossrail as that's the threads obsession, not the GWR trains.
Hs1 & 2 do not constitute the network you referred to.
No I know I literally said that.
There is no likelihood of a national high speed network in the next 100 years.
Is there some quality analysis or insight that goes with that statement that you forgot to post? 🙂
Assembled masses : What do we want - improved rail infrastructure and a creation of a wide range of well paid, skilled jobs
Govt : Offers up HS2 plans
Assembled masses : No we don't want that. We want the benefit, not that lot.
ho-hum
There is no likelihood of a national high speed network in the next 100 years.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time is now.
If the argument was reduced to no railway upgrades until we can guarantee a high speed rail link to every village, then nothing could be built.
Do we need a better train service between Sheffield and Manchester - yes
Did we need a better train service between Wales/Bristol/Cornwall and London - also yes
it'll be interesting to see how high-speed trains of the future compete with autonymous, electric cars. The latter will (at some point) probably have dedicated roads running far higher speeds, and closer together than is acceptable with people-driven cars. With that approach the current motorway network could handle all the capacity at far lower costs than any high speed rail. Each seat will always be less ecological than a train seat, but if they only drive around when people are in them (unlike half-empty trains in the middle of the day), it might not be far off..
With that approach the current motorway network could handle all the capacity at far lower costs than any high speed rail.
Aside from everyone having to find £40k down the back of a sofa for a new car every few years in order to access it.
And it costing £850million to upgrade 30 miles of the M4 to "smart" motorway, which isn't any kind of future proof smart for self driving, it's just a variable speed limit.
I remain unconvinced that there is a benefit from HS2 or Crossrail if you don't use it. If you work in Tesco in Southport. You live locally and don't have cash for a trip to London, how do these benefit you?
We need improved infrastructure but it's the prioritisation of anything in the SE which is the issue. Have you tried getting from Preston to Newcastle? Or Norwich to Birmingham? There's no equality or equity here.
A fairly average newbuild detached in the suburbs is getting on for three quarters of a million. So yes I absolutely think the owners (including myself) should be paying 20% tax on those profits.
At what point would you pay that ?
If you are upgrading to a more expensive home then you will want that money to help pay for it. Who is going to want to move if you have tens of £k’s to pay on top ?
Perhaps if you make a good profit you could donate 20% of your profits to your local schools / hospitals/ emergency services or any other worthy causes. Cut out the government middle man and make sure 100% of it gets to where it needs to be 😉
Meanwhile, everywhere north of Birmingham
Think yourself lucky. Here's Scotrail's new fleet of high speed trains.
If you work in Tesco in Southport. You live locally and don’t have cash for a trip to London, how do these benefit you?
If you work in London, what's the benefit of a Tescos in Southport? Or perhapse a better analogy, if you live in London, what's the point of the 375 bus to Tescos in Southport, scrap the bus and give that subsidy and build me a better cycle route for my commute over the M4.
It's a ridiculous argument.
You can't make one single investment in a transport scheme and expect it to benefit everyone. The best you could ever achieve is to keep plugging away at it developing and implementing projects.
I remain unconvinced that there is a benefit from HS2 or Crossrail if you don’t use it. If you work in Tesco in Southport. You live locally and don’t have cash for a trip to London, how do these benefit you?
It grows the economy generally*. The people who shop in Tesco in Southport keep you in a job. Some of them work for a digital agency doing work for a client in London. These people are buying the higher value stuff and some luxuries because they're doing well for themselves. They won their contract over other London firms because they were competitively priced, and the client were willing to deal with them; because hey, it's an easy pleasant 2.5hr train journey on which they could do some pre-meeting chat and a bit of work whilst the train took the strain. If it'd been a 4.5hr drive (M25/M5/M6/M62 ugh) or a long slog on crappy trains they probably wouldn't have come.
Hypothetically of course. We're not there yet.
* and yes, the wealth created by the economy needs to be properly distributed.
We need improved infrastructure but it’s the prioritisation of anything in the SE which is the issue.
Yeah this is a tricky one. You need to do two things - you definitely need to do things that grow the businesses that are already there - in London - because they are paying most of the taxes. But you ALSO need to invest in places that don't have as many businesses. This is what hasn't been done.
At what point would you pay that ?
If you are upgrading to a more expensive home then you will want that money to help pay for it. Who is going to want to move if you have tens of £k’s to pay on top ?
Exactly, unless you are not going to buy another house you haven't made a profit as the next house you buy will have risen in price just as much as yours. The effect of such an ill thought out tax would be nobody could sell their house other than those not buying another one (very few people)
But Brum to Paris could be <4hrs if HSx was implemented correctly
Yup. And it's centre to centre, with short check in times. I reckon door to door (for central locations) it would be quicker than flying.
The point is that all UK tax-payers money is being used for SE based projects yet there is almost no investment in other regions. The SE just benefits whilst all the other regions do not prosper.
The notion that we all benefit is a nonsense, go to any impoverished area in Bristol, Leeds, Blackburn etc. and tell the locals how ,if they are fortunate enough to work and pay tax, that their taxes are being put to good use in funding yet another infra project to get a city worker from Chelmsford to Leadenhall 3 minutes faster
I know it's an oversimplification but genuinely I still don't see the upside to the most regions whether they are impoverished or not. You guys also need to remember that many people have regular jobs in shops, schools, factories etc. Going to London on business is never going to happen. The major employers outside of the large cities are nearly always the NHS and the council, they are busy providing services for locals not gallavanting off to London for a meeting.
With the advent of digital tech most meetings do not need to be face to face any more, Covid proved this
At what point would you pay that ?
If you are upgrading to a more expensive home then you will want that money to help pay for it. Who is going to want to move if you have tens of £k’s to pay on top ?
No different to stamp duty then, except it would be inversely proportional to how often you move.
Some grandparents in Surrey would have to pay 20% on it's rise since they paid 3 and sixpence in 1953. Working people who want to change jobs and move up the career ladder would pay very little as they might want to move every 5 years. The current system prevents people from moving, whilst rewarding people who can sit on their property for decades by taxing the same rate whether you've been there 6 months or 60 years.
The system works perfectly well for inheritance tax, when one half of a couple dies, the tax is calculated, but nothings taken until the surviving parter dies and the home can be sold.
Same could easily work for a CGT, you could either pay it off each time you moved like stamp duty, pay it off when you downsized, or pay it off when the house is sold when you're dead.
Like I said, why do you believe it's fair that a young family has to pay 100% of those capital gains to get onto the property ladder, but older generations shouldn't pay 20% of those un-earnt gains to society.
Perhaps if you make a good profit you could donate 20% of your profits to your local schools / hospitals/ emergency services or any other worthy causes. Cut out the government middle man and make sure 100% of it gets to where it needs to be 😉
The games already rigged in favor of older generations, I'm not going to play it with one hand tied behind my back as well.
Exactly, unless you are not going to buy another house you haven’t made a profit as the next house you buy will have risen in price just as much as yours. The effect of such an ill thought out tax would be nobody could sell their house other than those not buying another one (very few people)
How do you pay stamp duty?
High speed rail network - 30 year planning horizon, endless public enquiries, prolonged construction programme.
If you can point me to the government's national infrastructure plan I'll search that for any meaningful reference to the development of high speed rail infrastructure; should also be able to see the time period covered.
For reference, molgrips, it was you who referred to a nationwide high speed rail network.
No different to stamp duty then, except it would be inversely proportional to how often you move.
Some grandparents in Surrey would have to pay 20% on it’s rise since they paid 3 and sixpence in 1953. Working people who want to change jobs and move up the career ladder would pay very little as they might want to move every 5 years. The current system prevents people from moving, whilst rewarding people who can sit on their property for decades by taxing the same rate whether you’ve been there 6 months or 60 years.
The system works perfectly well for inheritance tax, when one half of a couple dies, the tax is calculated, but nothings taken until the surviving parter dies and the home can be sold.
Same could easily work for a CGT, you could either pay it off each time you moved like stamp duty, pay it off when you downsized, or pay it off when the house is sold when you’re dead.
Like I said, why do you believe it’s fair that a young family has to pay 100% of those capital gains to get onto the property ladder, but older generations shouldn’t pay 20% of those un-earnt gains to society.
You are assuming the person in your story doesn't need care.
In the case of several family members, they may have accrued money in the their home, but invariably all this, bar (I think £16k to pay for funeral arrangements), will eaten up in care home fees which are running at >£100k a year.
So in your planning, Ethel runs up £200k equity in her home. This is sold and £40k (using your 20%) goes to the tax man. OK, but her care home fees eat up her remaining equity sooner and then the tax man has to bear the cost of her ongoing care.
So the only way us, the tax payer, would see any benefit was if Ethel dies in her own home before she needs care.
Therefore your policy would both be unpopular with the general public AND raise no real revenue in most instances.
Some of them work for a digital agency doing work for a client in London
Has Covid working from home not taught us anything? All that could be done in a zoom / teams meeting. I used to have to do an 8 hour round trip to near London for pre- start meetings for new contracts . Do all that on line now .
What they need to develop is a virtual reality system like in Kingsmen where you can sit round a table with each other remotely 😄
You are assuming the person in your story doesn’t need care.
You're assuming that taxing everyone fairly wouldn't result in a heathcare system that stops caring for you when it gets expensive.
Although yes, I'd also be in favor of an inheritance tax system that meant the only things that could be passed on were of sentimental value. The biggest part of most estates is going to be the house, and for most people they're going to have seen it go up 5x-10x what they paid for housing over their lifetime. None of that gain was "earned". Infact arguably most of it is earnt by younger generations still working in the economy, earning money and outbidding each other for the assets owned by the generations above them.
So your 20% property tax is going to cover the whole cost of nursing homes and care homes for everyone, abolishing bog standard, but private care homes which cost £2k a week?!
Blimey! you must be expecting a bumper haul!
So your 20% property tax is going to cover the whole cost of nursing homes and care homes for everyone, abolishing bog standard, but private care homes which cost £2k a week?!
Blimey! you must be expecting a bumper haul!
If your options are either
a) take 100% of the assets of 20% of the population to fund their care
b) take 20% of the assets of 100% of the population to fund their care
Then yes, yes I am.
Actualy you seem to have missread it, I'm saying 20% CGT on property, AND substantially higher inheritance tax, you can inherit grandads gold watch, but not the million pound bungalow in Sevenoaks. We're in the bonkers scenario where some kids born to parents in the SE stand to inherit more than the lifetime earnings of someone on minimum wage.
If your options are either
a) take 100% of the assets of 20% of the population to fund their care
b) take 20% of the assets of 100% of the population to fund their careThen yes, yes I am.
(Actualy you seem to have missread it, I’m saying 20% CGT on property, AND substantially higher inheritance tax, you can inherit grandads gold watch, but not the million pound bungalow in Sevenoaks).
It seems like you are actually proposing to take 100% of the assets from 100% of the population. Unless they don't have any assets that is.
That's a shitty deal any way you market it.
I think we can all agree that a high speed rail network is 'a good idea'.
Where it goes, how much it should cost and how long it takes (to build) are the matters for debate.
This is my understanding of hs2
The gov has used our taxes over the last 5+ years to buy up the land, property and houses required to implement a good proportion of it.
It's taken decades of debate, planning and infrastructure design to get to the point where construction contracts have been made and boots are on site.
Id assume it'll now cost us far more in lost public money with predicted fall in house prices to get out of building it that it would to actually implement it. The time to get out of building was 12-18months ago when house prices were high and some money could have been reimbursed, but BoJo gave it the go ahead.
The point is that all UK tax-payers money is being used for SE based projects yet there is almost no investment in other regions. The SE just benefits whilst all the other regions do not prosper.
thats demonstratably untrue. The south east puts more money into the pot than any other region, and takes less-per-head out again. This is good, it pays for making things more even across the country, but to claim it doesn't exist is nonsense.
For reference, molgrips, it was you who referred to a nationwide high speed rail network.
Yes, I said that HS2 wasn't a complete network in itself (obviously) simply part of one.
The notion that we all benefit is a nonsense, go to any impoverished area in Bristol, Leeds, Blackburn etc. and tell the locals how ,if they are fortunate enough to work and pay tax, that their taxes are being put to good use in funding yet another infra project to get a city worker from Chelmsford to Leadenhall 3 minutes faster
The worker in Leadenhall is literally making money and should be generating taxable income. That income should be going to help those people in impoverished areas. And it is, just not enough. Those places would be even worse off if the money making parts of the UK weren't making any money.
The fact that wealth is distributed unequally is a political choice. And yes, as I said. ALL areas need investment, in different ways. I'm not advocating neglecting anywhere, of course I'm not. As a resident of South Wales I'm quite aware of the issues.
The south east puts more money into the pot than any other region, and takes less-per-head out again.
Yes - not enough, of course, but there you go.
That's not completely true though and is a parochial view. The notion that the City pays so much tax that the rest of country benefits isn't really representative. Many other cities like Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Cambridge, Oxford have thriving insurance, banking, tech sectors and contribute to the national coffers.
We're turning into France where Paris completely dominates to the detriment of other cities/regions. We have a lot of major cities outside of London where prosperity is possible given better Govt policy (national and local).
The south east puts more money into the pot than any other region, and takes less-per-head out again.
Are you talking absolutes, relatives or ratios? Otherwise it's apples vs pears comparisons
Things gravitate to the SE due to policy, the Govt won't change that and sadly neither will Labour. We all saw Truss & KamiKwasi banging on about people outside the SE don't work hard enough 🤦♂️
Many other cities like Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Cambridge, Oxford have thriving insurance, banking, tech sectors and contribute to the national coffers.
I don't think it's anything like on the same scale, having worked for lots of companies in many of these places.
We’re turning into France where Paris completely dominates to the detriment of other cities/regions.
We've been this way for thousands of years. Thing is, this is the case across all European countries if you look at it historically. Most countries have one huge city (e.g France, Sweden, Finland) or the are modern amalgamations of territories that themselves had one huge city. So whilst Germany has lots of big cities it's made of states that have one major city each - so is Spain. It's a feature of how countries develop, I think.
Governments face a dilemma, because investing where all the businesses already are (e.g. London, Paris) benefits the most people and generates the most business; and in the case of transport is the most needed because the big cities are densest. Imagine London if it didn't have a tube - it wouldn't function at all. However, places where there aren't lots of businesses already need investment to create the businesses. So like I say - investment in both is needed.
Things gravitate to the SE due to policy
No, it's because businesses gravitate to places where other businesses already are. London has always dwarfed the other cities in the UK since long long before Tories and Labour existed.
Governments face a dilemma, because investing where all the businesses already are (e.g. London, Paris) benefits the most people
Hmm. Remind me again how Brexit has benefitted most people ;-(
No, it’s because businesses gravitate to places where other businesses already are. London has always dwarfed the other cities in the UK since long long before Tories and Labour existed.
Not really, it's quite a recent thing say the last 100 years but it accelerated as we demolished our manufacturing base and moved to service industries such as finance in the last 40yrs
London has dwarfed the other cities in the uk for centuries;
During the 18th-century towns in Britain grew larger. Nevertheless, most towns still had populations of less than 10,000. However, in the late 18th century new industrial towns in the Midland and the North of England mushroomed.
Meanwhile, the population of London grew to nearly 1 million by the end of the century. Other towns were much smaller. The population of Liverpool was about 77,000 in 1800. Birmingham had about 73,000 people and Manchester had about 70,000. Bristol had a population of about 68,000. Sheffield was smaller with 31,000 people and Leeds had about 30,000 people. Leicester had a population of about 17,000 in 1800. In the south, Portsmouth had a population of about 32,000 in 1800 while Exeter had about 20,000 people.
( https://localhistories.org/a-history-of-the-population-of-england/)
London had long been an economic powerhouse. The capital’s population steadily increased over the 19th century. In the ten years from the 1891 Census its population expanded by 20 percent (939,000). By 1901, 17 percent of the national population lived in the capital
( https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/12-07-11-Cities-Outlook-1901.pdf)
