Abandon HS2 and its grotesque financial and environmental cost??

I’m quite surprised this is still going ahead to be honest.

karlypants wrote:I’m quite surprised this is still going ahead to be honest.

Too late for my mate. He's had to move out, and buy a new house in Croft.

HS2 is a ludicrous waste of money and any sensible politician would have cancelled it. Unfortunately Boris loves big "prestige" projects no matter how ridiculous and impractical they are (e.g. the Garden Bridge in London, the bridge from Scotland to Ireland, etc) and so hasn't.

The pandemic has accelerated change in working practices and leaving the EU will change the make up of businesses in the economy so it would make sense to reconsider any proposals that are predicated on enhancing people movement especially vanity projects like HS2 IMO.
It’s not as if the money won’t be needed elsewhere. 
Who wouldn’t prefer a more robust NHS that serves everyone instead of knocking off a few minutes of travel time for the few?

wanderlust wrote:The pandemic has accelerated change in working practices and leaving the EU will change the make up of businesses in the economy so it would make sense to reconsider any proposals that are predicated on enhancing people movement especially vanity projects like HS2 IMO.
It’s not as if the money won’t be needed elsewhere. 
Who wouldn’t prefer a more robust NHS that serves everyone instead of knocking off a few minutes of travel time for the few?

All valid points, but lets not forget how far into the future this project goes. Come 10, 15, or 20 years in the future, and we don't have a fast and efficient service to the major hubs throughout the country, we'll all be moaning about lack of foresight. Lets not forget also, that it, hopefully, will reduce, or at least maintain, the current levels of commercial traffic, and the number of people who will be in long-term employment.

gloswhite wrote:
All valid points, but lets not forget how far into the future this project goes. Come 10, 15, or 20 years in the future, and we don't have a fast and efficient service to the major hubs throughout the country, we'll all be moaning about lack of foresight. Lets not forget also, that it, hopefully, will reduce, or at least maintain, the current levels of commercial traffic, and the number of people who will be in long-term employment.

Perhaps but I’d be surprised if we still have an NHS which is now skint and that can be conveniently blamed on Covid making it ripe for a sell off. I’d prefer essential services for all over convenience - and profits -  for a few. To me, this project is just another way of widening the societal divide but ultimately It’s just my preference as to where we spend our tax income.

gloswhite wrote:
All valid points, but lets not forget how far into the future this project goes. Come 10, 15, or 20 years in the future, and we don't have a fast and efficient service to the major hubs throughout the country, we'll all be moaning about lack of foresight. Lets not forget also, that it, hopefully, will reduce, or at least maintain, the current levels of commercial traffic, and the number of people who will be in long-term employment.

And how many people will be travelling on these trains in 20 years? The real growth in rail travel has been on the commuter lines not the inter city business travel ones.

gloswhite wrote:
All valid points, but lets not forget how far into the future this project goes. Come 10, 15, or 20 years in the future, and we don't have a fast and efficient service to the major hubs throughout the country, we'll all be moaning about lack of foresight. Lets not forget also, that it, hopefully, will reduce, or at least maintain, the current levels of commercial traffic, and the number of people who will be in long-term employment.

We won't be moaning we'll be dead.

Cajunboy wrote:
We won't be moaning we'll be dead.

Shouldn’t this be on the “things that cheer you up” thread?

Wander, after the way the NHS have performed in this last year, I defy any government to try to change it, or its finances, other than genuine improvements. It'll be, quite rightly, nothing short of a suicide note

You might defy them glos but that won't stop them selling off anything they think they can get a quick buck for. Don't forget the Tories systematically underfunded the NHS for 10 years and we were short of doctors, nurse and hospital beds even before the current covid crisis. We have significantly fewer doctors, nurses and hospital beds than virtually all West European countries.

True, yet were still coping, after a fashion.

boltonbonce wrote:

karlypants wrote:I’m quite surprised this is still going ahead to be honest.

Too late for my mate. He's had to move out, and buy a new house in Croft.

I hope he got a good price.

karlypants wrote:

I hope he got a good price.  

Not what he should have got. Take it or leave it.

From today's BBC website:

A landmark review has called for transformational change in our economic approach to nature.
The long-awaited review by Prof Sir Partha Dasgupta, of the University of Cambridge, says prosperity has come at a "devastating" cost to the natural world.
The report proposes recognising nature as an asset and reconsidering our measures of economic prosperity.
It is expected to set the agenda on government policy going forward.
At its heart is the idea that sustainable economic growth requires a different measure than Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
"Truly sustainable economic growth and development means recognising that our long-term prosperity relies on rebalancing our demand of nature's goods and services with its capacity to supply them," Prof Dasgupta said in a statement.
"It also means accounting fully for the impact of our interactions with nature across all levels of society."
Covid-19 has shown us what can happen when we don't do this, he added. "Nature is our home. Good economics demands we manage it better."