General British politics discussion thread

ancapailldorcha

quokula wrote: »

It was also an extremely localised campaign - the Lib Dems campaigned heavily against the building of high speed rail through the area and also against the building of more houses that might ruin the picturesque views.

Pure NIMBYism in other words, and not exactly a beacon of hope for more progressive citizens to rally around in general.

The Lib Dems are officially pro-HS2 so this isn't a great look for them in general.

pixelburp

To that subject and for the incurably lazy, what is the deal with the HS2 that it's such a political hot potato in the first place? High speed networks always feel like they draw flak, but is there something especially problematic about this one; is it just NIMBYism, or does it go deeper?

Tom Mann Centuria

quokula wrote: »

It was also an extremely localised campaign - the Lib Dems campaigned heavily against the building of high speed rail through the area and also against the building of more houses that might ruin the picturesque views.

Pure NIMBYism in other words, and not exactly a beacon of hope for more progressive citizens to rally around in general.

The very local campaigns were always what the Liberals and what followed did best. (my dad was very active in his local party for virtually his whole voting life, stood for the council a few times, until they went into coalition and he got more left wing in his last few years). They have good small, but commited local parties who do the leg work (and get their kids to fold leaflets......) and localism is one of their strengths. These days I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Lib Dems are officially pro-HS2 so this isn't a great look for them in general.

It definitely did raise my eyebrow initially but to be fair, I think their position was nuanced on it.They were for HS2 but only if certain conditions were met so i think it's ok they were able to put up a counter argument for this vote. I think I'd be willing to give them a pass on this one. It's not tuition fees flip flop territory anyway!

ancapailldorcha

pixelburp wrote: »

To that subject and for the incurably lazy, what is the deal with the HS2 that it's such a political hot potato in the first place? High speed networks always feel like they draw flak, but is there something especially problematic about this one; is it just NIMBYism, or does it go deeper?

As far as I can tell, opposition is based on a combination of NIMBYism and a concern for property prices. The UK has a serious inequality problem so joining up the cities better than they are at present is something that just needs to happen in some form or another. More working from home might help incentivise people to stay where they are instead of cramming themselves into London.

The main arguments are based on the amount of money HS2 will cost, the consistent delays and the potential impact on the environment. The cost seems to be a bit of a red herring given how the government has haemhorrhaged money on various nonsense over the years. In terms of the environment, only about a tenth of this island is built on so it's not like that'll change in a big way while the delays are probably down to various things.

I've noticed that there's a strong individualistic culture here, much moreso than in Ireland. People tend to think of themselves first and everyone else second when it comes to Politics. Most cities have some form of greenbelt, ostensibly to protect the environment but it helps that it keeps property values high. People pay a fortune for low quality housing and then get upset, not unreasonable when something appears which may mar that view.

The whole thing is a farce but my own stance is that it should proceed. The Tory party clearly agrees as rural shire voters are people they rely on quite heavily to remain in power so they wouldn't be risking this sort of censure were it not necessary.

Strazdas

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think the by-election result means anything to be honest. People voting in a by-election might feel a bit gamier than normal. Same in European elections when we enjoyed that privilege. People would vote for smaller parties but when it comes to general elections, it's always going to be one of the big two.

Yes, but I guess the 'shock result' part is that people assumed the Tories were very popular in 2021. There was all the stuff a few months ago about the vaccines success and Johnson surging in the polls as a result. It's not as if they had been predicted to lose the seat, never mind lose it so heavily.

I notice even one of the Daily Telegraph political columnists warning that this could be the start of serious trouble for Johnson, rather than being an isolated one off.

Joe_ Public

As to whether HS2 was a decisive issue, I guess subsequent polling might give an indication one way or the other, but it doesn't tally very well with the Green vote dropping by nearly 2%. Chesham and Amersham does have an above average older demographic so that might explain it a little. Don't think it's to do with tactical voting anyway.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

As to whether HS2 was a decisive issue, I guess subsequent polling might give an indication one way or the other, but it doesn't tally very well with the Green vote dropping by nearly 2%. Chesham and Amersham does have an above average older demographic so that might explain it a little. Don't think it's to do with tactical voting anyway.

I'd say it's quite a few things coming to a head. Dominic Grieve makes the interesting suggestion that Johnson himself is the problem - yes, he has the millions of slavish Tory disciples and Daily Mail readers who buy fully into his invented media image, but he reckons there are plenty more who see through this and realise he is a charlatan. Perhaps they voted for him in 2019 when he was up against Corbyn, but they also have a fair idea what he is really like.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

I'd say it's quite a few things coming to a head. Dominic Grieve makes the interesting suggestion that Johnson himself is the problem - yes, he has the millions of slavish Tory disciples and Daily Mail readers who buy fully into his invented media image, but he reckons there are plenty more who see through this and realise he is a charlatan. Perhaps they voted for him in 2019 when he was up against Corbyn, but they also have a fair idea what he is really like.

I'm inclined to believe there is a significant anti Johnson factor there. And it is concerning for them, but on flip side it's given them a fairly early warning and they're usually quite sharp in taking lessons on board. I doubt they'd be slow to oust Johnson once the perception of him being a liability took hold, remember maggie after delivering a big result in 87! Governments traditionally expect to get bloody noses at by election time as well, so that should be taken into account too I think.

Podge_irl

The Greens being against HS2 is one of those things that I will never be able to wrap my head around. They seem to be prioritising local visual intrusion upon the countryside over actual emissions and sustainable transport.

ancapailldorcha

Podge_irl wrote: »

The Greens being against HS2 is one of those things that I will never be able to wrap my head around. They seem to be prioritising local visual intrusion upon the countryside over actual emissions and sustainable transport.

It's one of those appalling policies that has the luxury of attracting both skint students and old NIMBYs with the result being an incredibly easy way of attracting support. Cynical, I know but votes and donations have to come from somewhere.

Same in Brighton. Green-controlled council was adamantly opposed to building new houses while bleating on and on about unfairness. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Joe_ Public

Podge_irl wrote: »

The Greens being against HS2 is one of those things that I will never be able to wrap my head around. They seem to be prioritising local visual intrusion upon the countryside over actual emissions and sustainable transport.

I guess the argument is that the proposed environmental gains from having it could never offset the destruction of natural habitats and carbon emissions generated from building it. I'm no expert on it but the argument seems plausible enough on the surface. Not as clearcut as third heathrow runway, mind.

Sam Russell

Podge_irl wrote: »

The Greens being against HS2 is one of those things that I will never be able to wrap my head around. They seem to be prioritising local visual intrusion upon the countryside over actual emissions and sustainable transport.

But is HS2 that green? It is high speed travel - which is inherently higher energy consumption compared to slower versions of the same mode. It is also quite destructive of the countryside - for little real benefit.

Podge_irl

Sam Russell wrote: »

But is HS2 that green? It is high speed travel - which is inherently higher energy consumption compared to slower versions of the same mode. It is also quite destructive of the countryside - for little real benefit.

Faced with the choice between slow, unreliable public transport and cars, people will drive.

HS2 is needed to enable further increase in local train services also.

Opposing HS2, and high speed rail in general, is about as anti-green as you can get unless their solution is to literally stop people travelling.

quokula

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I guess the argument is that the proposed environmental gains from having it could never offset the destruction of natural habitats and carbon emissions generated from building it. I'm no expert on it but the argument seems plausible enough on the surface. Not as clearcut as third heathrow runway, mind.

In the context of all the other building happening all over the country, a fairly straight and narrow rail line, much of which will be going through farmland rather than wild meadows, doesn't seem to me like something that would have a major impact on habitats, relative to the huge benefits of taking many cars off the road.

My experience of friends working on major infrastructure in the UK is that a lot of care is taken around preserving habitats, painstakingly moving animal colonies if needed etc - it's one of the reasons these projects tend to be so lengthy and expensive (though I'm sure the current government will be looking at tearing up a lot of that sort of regulation)

I do say all of that without having looked at impact studies, cost benefit analysis etc, but as a general rule, the more efficient public transport that is available the better it will be for the environment in the long term, pretty much without exception.

Joe_ Public

quokula wrote: »

In the context of all the other building happening all over the country, a fairly straight and narrow rail line, much of which will be going through farmland rather than wild meadows, doesn't seem to me like something that would have a major impact on habitats, relative to the huge benefits of taking many cars off the road.

My experience of friends working on major infrastructure in the UK is that a lot of care is taken around preserving habitats, painstakingly moving animal colonies if needed etc - it's one of the reasons these projects tend to be so lengthy and expensive (though I'm sure the current government will be looking at tearing up a lot of that sort of regulation)

I do say all of that without having looked at impact studies, cost benefit analysis etc, but as a general rule, the more efficient public transport that is available the better it will be for the environment in the long term, pretty much without exception.

Right, so the sense I am picking up on this topic is that posters, including myself, don't seem to have detailed knowledge of these particular concerns, but have their deep rooted opinions anyway. I mean, i am instantly drawn to reports of widespread disruption to areas of outstanding natural beauty which would instinctively make me dubious about it, but i don't know enough to say that with a huge amount of conviction. I don't think the project has been handled at all well from the outset and they don't seem to have been up front with people about Euston square so I couldn't in all honesty be cynical about people opposing it for their own reasons.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

But is HS2 that green? It is high speed travel - which is inherently higher energy consumption compared to slower versions of the same mode. It is also quite destructive of the countryside - for little real benefit.

Long distance travel by rail in the UK is expensive unless booked in advance.
London - Manchester for Monday
Train £143.60
British Airways £132
Bus £8
car €47

https://www.omio.com/buses/london/manchester
https://www.viamichelin.com

Investing in better broadband for remote working would money better spent.

ancapailldorcha

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Long distance travel by rail in the UK is expensive unless booked in advance.
London - Manchester for Monday
Train £143.60
British Airways £132
Bus £8
car €47

https://www.omio.com/buses/london/manchester
https://www.viamichelin.com

Investing in better broadband for remote working would money better spent.

Yep. I worked in a clinical trials lab in Manchester and we got audited by a firm in London. They booked return flights from Heathrow the day before for £70 I think. My previous boss lives in Colchester and was spending nearly £5,000 a year on his season ticket for the train to Liverpool Street and the tube. Utter madness.

Joe_ Public

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Long distance travel by rail in the UK is expensive unless booked in advance.
London - Manchester for Monday
Train £143.60
British Airways £132
Bus £8
car €47

https://www.omio.com/buses/london/manchester
https://www.viamichelin.com

Investing in better broadband for remote working would money better spent.

High speed rail is another big boon for the cities, look how quickly i can get to london now! Whereas reliable high speed broadband for all gives people the chance to move back to the towns, create ancillary businesses to service them and perhaps reinject life back into ailing high streets. It's a no brainer every day of the week.

listermint

There can be no defending these sorts of actions. The UK is climbing down into a deep hole. And the losers are the public and the money they pay into taxes.

https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1405876383168057347

Joe_ Public

listermint wrote: »

There can be no defending these sorts of actions. The UK is climbing down into a deep hole. And the losers are the public and the money they pay into taxes.

https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1405876383168057347

Amazing they'd want to curb these powers at exactly the same time they'd have us believe electoral fraud is such a major issue that they need to introduce new voter id laws in order to counteract it. To clarify, it's obviously not really fraud when the Tories or the right do it.

Tell me how

Carole Cadwalladr asking some very pertinent questions of Dominic Cummings who opened the door to them with having an 'Ask me anything' Blog.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1406213160563056640?s=20

Interesting to see the number of 'likes' her questions have received versus someone asking could he recommend any books, papers or reports?'..

She's been one of the few investigative journalists worthy of the name over the last few years, and a fellow journalist who is now leading the 'think tank' 'News Station', GB News, Andrew Neil, called her a crazy cat lady while doing so as he sat on his sofa at the BBC every Thursday night, not asking the same questions as Brexit was contemplated, campaigned for, voted, and negotiated. No comparison between the 2 when it comes to journalistic endeavour and yet he has ended up with his own station, she has ended up using funding platforms to raise money to defend herself in court from a friend of Cummings who sued her because of what she uncovered and published.

devnull

Just saw that GB have surprise launched a new show called 'Political Correction' this Sunday. The name gives away what the aim of the game is with this show pretty much.

Seems to be a show that is nowhere near the 'fair and balanced' commitment that the channel has talked about, with Nigel Farage, a president of an actual political party, hosting with Dehenna Davison, a Tory MP who was caught posing with extreme far right figures, and Tom Harwood, a former Tory candidate.

Does anyone know what 'due impartiality' means?

pixelburp

I see internet sensation John Bercow has defected to Labour. Not that he holds any significant clout but an interesting enough development given the goodwill Bercow holds. Starmer won't be watching his back like, but Labour could find itself with a media darling.

cml387

pixelburp wrote: »

I see internet sensation John Bercow has defected to Labour. Not that he holds any significant clout but an interesting enough development given the goodwill Bercow holds. Starmer won't be watching his back like, but Labour could find itself with a media darling.

Quite a political journey from strong right wing of he Conservative to Labour.
Interestingly enough the current speaker is as outraged by the government's contempt of parliament as was Bercow.

Water John

cml387 wrote: »

Quite a political journey from strong right wing of he Conservative to Labour.
Interestingly enough the current speaker is as outraged by the government's contempt of parliament as was Bercow.

I admire politicians who evolve during their lifetime. Shows they are now slaves to a a party or ideology. This is quite different to someone who does a complete 180 turn as an opportunist.
Bercow himself admits he's pompous but the same people who castigate Bercow, for what could be politically termed a minor flaw, support a shyster like Johnson.

Tell me how

pixelburp wrote: »

I see internet sensation John Bercow has defected to Labour. Not that he holds any significant clout but an interesting enough development given the goodwill Bercow holds. Starmer won't be watching his back like, but Labour could find itself with a media darling.

Breaking News stories in Telegraph and Daily Mail on claims about Bercow bullying staff members as soon as they think he's getting too much positive press.

pixelburp

Water John wrote: »

I admire politicians who evolve during their lifetime. Shows they are now slaves to a a party or ideology. This is quite different to someone who does a complete 180 turn as an opportunist.
Bercow himself admits he's pompous but the same people who castigate Bercow, for what could be politically termed a minor flaw, support a shyster like Johnson.

Yeah, while not applicable to a chancer like Johnson, it's remarkable how dogged ideological stubbornness is more often valued than an ability to self assess and revise one's outlook in life. IIRC the 2004 US election had John Kerry pitched as a "flip flopper" for what I recall as mere pragmatism. Honestly I hadn't know Bercow was so right wing earlier in his life; to have the honesty to mature his views makes him more admirable than the parliamentary entertainer he was as Speaker.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

She's been one of the few investigative journalists worthy of the name over the last few years, and a fellow journalist who is now leading the 'think tank' 'News Station', GB News, Andrew Neil, called her a crazy cat lady while doing so as he sat on his sofa at the BBC every Thursday night, not asking the same questions as Brexit was contemplated, campaigned for, voted, and negotiated. No comparison between the 2 when it comes to journalistic endeavour and yet he has ended up with his own station, she has ended up using funding platforms to raise money to defend herself in court from a friend of Cummings who sued her because of what she uncovered and published.

This is what I was talking about in the above post.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1406565446392877061

The thread itself is worth reading but the second one here (don't know why it's showing 2 tweets) is of particular attention.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1406577779995459593

This for the people that don't think that GB News is going to play a significant role in how the government is perceived and while supporters might claim that there's channels that give the negative spin on the government, anyone who has watched Laura Keunnsberg over the last 2 years won't necessarily agree with that and when the government refuses to offer someone to speak to shows on Channel 4 for over a year it should tell you how they can manage the voices they don't like just how influential the space around news outlets is and is probably going to continue to be.

I've said repeatedly I think the GBNews amateur hour could be somewhat deliberate to allow that to be the narrative for a few weeks and then they'll gradually improve in that respect and dismiss any claims about their focus as being from the same people who hoped they'd fail from the start.

Tell me how

^^^
Last one on this for now.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1406702162193928192

I think she's 100% right, this is all coordinated. This is way more than a simple commercial venture by some people looking to avail of a market opportunity and I understand Nigel Farage was on a show this morning and if so, I'm not surprised and it only forces what it is the purpose of GB News is going to be.