HS2 Station In/Around Sheffield

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by Crookes

Yup - nobody has lost money loaning money to the IMF - we'll be loaning it out at a higher interest rate than the rate that we borrow it at, so it'll make us a few quid.

Except until recently IMF policy for indebted countries was typically default & decouple; now it is bailout & borrow.

The IMF has turned itself, since the credit-crunch, into an organisation that solves the problem of a country unable to pay a debt by making the country more indebted - wasn't this the kind of thing that caused the credit-crunch and debt crises in the first place? Weren't the banks that made a lot of sub-prime loans the ones that had to be bailed out so that people didn't lose all the money they invested in them?

Nobody has lost money loaning to the IMF yet. But oh they will, given we are solving the mistakes of the past with the same mistakes.

[Crookes]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

Except until recently IMF policy for indebted countries was typically default & decouple; now it is bailout & borrow.

The IMF has turned itself, since the credit-crunch, into an organisation that solves the problem of a country unable to pay a debt by making the country more indebted - wasn't this the kind of thing that caused the credit-crunch and debt crises in the first place? Weren't the banks that made a lot of sub-prime loans the ones that had to be bailed out so that people didn't lose all the money they invested in them?

Nobody has lost money loaning to the IMF yet. But oh they will, given we are solving the mistakes of the past with the same mistakes.

I'm not meaning to defend the IMF, I'm trying to say that lending them money will make us money (rather than costing us anything), so it can't be compared to things like HS2 (which is a lot less certain to return its investment) e.g. "how come the Government can afford to find £10bn for the IMF when it can't find the money for (insert pet project)"

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by Crookes

I'm not meaning to defend the IMF, I'm trying to say that lending them money will make us money (rather than costing us anything), so it can't be compared to things like HS2 (which is a lot less certain to return its investment) e.g. "how come the Government can afford to find £10bn for the IMF when it can't find the money for (insert pet project)"

And what I was saying that while it may have done in the past, IMF policy has changed since the credit-crunch into repeating the mistakes of the credit-crunch and it's less likely we'd be able to get our money back, let alone make money.

And that's quite aside from the moral, economic and legal problems of laundering money though the IMF and National Governments (the bailing out of which is illegal under EU treaty law) to give the bankers immunity from "your investment may go up or down" by crippling the various nation states bailed out with the bill for all the interest that gets added at every stage (banks, HMG, IMF), when they got the loan as they couldn't repay the debt they owed the banks directly.

[Irish Blood English Heart]

Reports tonight that the government is to cancel High Speed 2 as part of a "change of direction" after the local election defeats.

[jozblade]

In other words, by-passing the Labour strongholds of the north (bar probably Manchester).

[muddycoffee]

Originally Posted by Irish Blood English Heart

Reports tonight that the government is to cancel High Speed 2 as part of a "change of direction" after the local election defeats.

After that alarming post. I have searched all the news channels which I often read and have found no mention of the issue.

Maybe it was based upon a remark from someone representing one of those home counties villages that are being blighted by the route, rather than an actual government announcement.

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by muddycoffee

Maybe it was based upon a remark from someone representing one of those home counties villages that are being blighted by the route, rather than an actual government announcement.

Which would be odd - Bucks didn't have elections and other councils through which the route goes showed, with the exception of Birmingham and Hillingdon and Ealing little-to-no Tory losses (and even Tory gains at the expense of the Lib Dems).

[NCT]

There have been some backbench disquietness and rumours, but I don't think they'll come to much (hopefully).

[Irish Blood English Heart]

Originally Posted by muddycoffee

After that alarming post. I have searched all the news channels which I often read and have found no mention of the issue.

Maybe it was based upon a remark from someone representing one of those home counties villages that are being blighted by the route, rather than an actual government announcement.

It was on 5 Live that they reported it, and it was all over twitter too but looking in the press most mentions are that it would be "delayed" whatever that means:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...C0wIIPym1XEJZw

[ps60]

Maybe our problem with HS2 and other things like Midland Mainline electrification is that we're not assertive enough. We don't demand a bigger slice of the cake and kick up a stink. We meekly accept that London and the South East etc will always get more spent on them per head and should get more, with hardly a whimper raised in protest, whilst the East Midlands and South Yorkshire are left to go to ruin. The Scots have got it right. They and their elected representatives do kick up a stink, that is why their Central Belt railways are getting electrified, whilst South Yorkshire and the East Midlands gets left out. We have seen a piece where railway station car parks in the South East get more investment than the Midland Mainline. That should never be the case, and would never be the case if we were anything like the French.

[Aaronj09]

Originally Posted by ps60

Maybe our problem with HS2 and other things like Midland Mainline electrification is that we're not assertive enough. We don't demand a bigger slice of the cake and kick up a stink. We meekly accept that London and the South East etc will always get more spent on them per head and should get more, with hardly a whimper raised in protest, whilst the East Midlands and South Yorkshire are left to go to ruin. The Scots have got it right. They and their elected representatives do kick up a stink, that is why their Central Belt railways are getting electrified, whilst South Yorkshire and the East Midlands gets left out. We have seen a piece where railway station car parks in the South East get more investment than the Midland Mainline. That should never be the case, and would never be the case if we were anything like the French.

Railways in Greater Manchester, Merseyside are already electrified and are now being electrified on some lines in West Yorkshire. Maybe the demand just isn't there in South Yorkshire and the East Midlands.

[ps60]

Originally Posted by Aaronj09

Railways in Greater Manchester, Merseyside are already electrified and are now being electrified on some lines in West Yorkshire. Maybe the demand just isn't there in South Yorkshire and the East Midlands.

Funny how the demand was there in Kings Lynn and Ely, but not Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield.

[muddycoffee]

Originally Posted by Aaronj09

Railways in Greater Manchester, Merseyside are already electrified and are now being electrified on some lines in West Yorkshire. Maybe the demand just isn't there in South Yorkshire and the East Midlands.

I think it is more likely to be the cost and difficulty of electrifying our part. Because our part of the railway network snakes in and out of our hilly terrain we have hundreds of bridges and tunnels that are low. They would all require raising or the ground lowering to enable overhead electric gear to fit in.

Whereas in places like manchester, merseyside, and leeds, the ground is as flat as a pancake (compared with sheffield) and therefore the conversion to electric is far cheaper and easier.

Originally Posted by ps60

Funny how the demand was there in Kings Lynn and Ely,

All flat and can be done much cheaper...

[ps60]

Originally Posted by muddycoffee

I think it is more likely to be the cost and difficulty of electrifying our part. Because our part of the railway network snakes in and out of our hilly terrain we have hundreds of bridges and tunnels that are low. They would all require raising or the ground lowering to enable overhead electric gear to fit in.

Whereas in places like manchester, merseyside, and leeds, the ground is as flat as a pancake (compared with sheffield) and therefore the conversion to electric is far cheaper and easier.


All flat and can be done much cheaper...

The cost of Midland mainline electrification is put at around £400 - 500 million. This line is already electrified to Bedford, which is about a third of the way from London to Sheffield. What is lacking is the will. And when a Government of lying Etonian toffs can give a massive £2 billion handout to those on £150,000 or more a year - less than 2% of the population, and not contribute a farthing to electrifying the MML, it shows where their priorities lie. And I won't let Labour off on this because they had 13 years to do it - and should have done it, but they didn't, and instead went for the £800 million GWR electrification to Bristol and Cardiiff. This (the MML) line should have been electrified 20 or more years ago.

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by ps60

And when a Government of lying Etonian toffs can give a massive £2 billion handout to those on £150,000 or more a year - less than 2% of the population, and not contribute a farthing to electrifying the MML, it shows where their priorities lie.

Sorry, but the 50% rate was proven to cost HMG money (as does the 45% rate) - via making it worthwhile for the wealthy to hire accountants to help them avoid tax and via the admin costs of having another band costing more than the amount raised.

It was a deliberate trap by Labour - if the Tories undo it, they are attacked for giving the wealthy a break, if they don't then they are attacked (by a different group) for continuing a policy that costs money and exists purely as a symbolic gesture. And 45% meant they decided to walk into both at the same time.

[alphaxion]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

Sorry, but the 50% rate was proven to cost HMG money (as does the 45% rate) - via making it worthwhile for the wealthy to hire accountants to help them avoid tax and via the admin costs of having another band costing more than the amount raised.

It was a deliberate trap by Labour - if the Tories undo it, they are attacked for giving the wealthy a break, if they don't then they are attacked (by a different group) for continuing a policy that costs money and exists purely as a symbolic gesture. And 45% meant they decided to walk into both at the same time.

Not quite true - a number of mainland European nations already have their tax rates higher than ours and have no trouble keeping hold of their rich. Our richest pay an appallingly low rate of tax and are getting richer at record speeds while the poor and middle class have their spending power eroded further, the rich need no more help in living a comfortable life and simply aren't contributing back to the society they are making their money from.

When it comes to corporations it's even worse, Vodafone has evaded over £10billion in tax alone! That would pay for how many infrastructure projects outside of London?

[ps60]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

Sorry, but the 50% rate was proven to cost HMG money (as does the 45% rate) - via making it worthwhile for the wealthy to hire accountants to help them avoid tax and via the admin costs of having another band costing more than the amount raised.

It was a deliberate trap by Labour - if the Tories undo it, they are attacked for giving the wealthy a break, if they don't then they are attacked (by a different group) for continuing a policy that costs money and exists purely as a symbolic gesture. And 45% meant they decided to walk into both at the same time.

Reducing the 50% rate to 45% has cost money - at least £2 billion to do - and there's the reduced tax intake to take into account as well through doing this. And stop peddling Osborne's lies justifying a handout to the wealthiest few and siding with loaded tax dodgers on this forum. You're impressing nobody.

[ps60]

Originally Posted by alphaxion

Not quite true - a number of mainland European nations already have their tax rates higher than ours and have no trouble keeping hold of their rich. Our richest pay an appallingly low rate of tax and are getting richer at record speeds while the poor and middle class have their spending power eroded further, the rich need no more help in living a comfortable life and simply aren't contributing back to the society they are making their money from.

When it comes to corporations it's even worse, Vodafone has evaded over £10billion in tax alone! That would pay for how many infrastructure projects outside of London?

There's also the chairman of Topshop, who avoids paying £3 billion in tax because his wife lives in her Monte Carlo tax haven. The richest 1,000 people in Britain are worth a staggering £414 BILLION or something like 28% of Britains GDP, their wealth has increased by 4% in this last year (a 4% wage rise would have been very nice for me) and many of them are tax dodgers. The super rich are using tax havens to avoid paying up to £160 BILLION in taxes every year, which is enough to wipe out borrowing, and they expect it to come from the pensions and taxes - both direct and indirect - of ordinary people. If you want to know why we're borrowing so much, these wealthy tax dodgers are one of the biggest reasons. A number of them gave us the credit crunch through their greed, and they're avoiding paying for it. And it is the poor and those on ordinary wages who knows what a recession feels like, not the wealthy who are insulated from the effects of recession by their wealth.

[Irish Blood English Heart]

The only reason it didn't raise much money was the very rich bought forward their dividends and payments to avoid it (see Emma Harrison) , with it being announced that it's being abolished after one year and announced in advance it's very easy to avoid it again by delaying salaries and dividends. Robert Peston totally debunked some of the myths the govt put out at the time of the budget.

[ps60]

Originally Posted by Irish Blood English Heart

The only reason it didn't raise much money was the very rich bought forward their dividends and payments to avoid it (see Emma Harrison) , with it being announced that it's being abolished after one year and announced in advance it's very easy to avoid it again by delaying salaries and dividends. Robert Peston totally debunked some of the myths the govt put out at the time of the budget.

Some people have a vested interest in seeing the higher rate of income tax abolished and would say that, because they benefit from it. Emma Harrison is probably one of them.