Support NeoGAF

[Incontinentia Buttocks]

So it seems like HS2 is now going full steam ahead (no pun intended). Pretty sure in my lurking days I read people in here saying their sources said it was going to be kicked in the long grass. Is this still the case?

It seems like a lot of money that could be better spent on existing infrastructure.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

What are opinions on the news that Clegg is likely to send his son to Public school?

He'll be accused of hypocrisy on one hand but on the other if he chooses to send his child to a state school when he can clearly afford to pay for them to go to a better quality, fee-paying school then that would stink of political opportunism. He can't win either way.

Honestly if I were in his position Id want my child to go to the best school possible.

I don't really have a problem with it if he can afford it.

The fact that he can afford it might mean we should look at MP's salaries though.

 

[SteveWD40]

So it seems like HS2 is now going full steam ahead (no pun intended). Pretty sure in my lurking days I read people in here saying their sources said it was going to be kicked in the long grass. Is this still the case?

It seems like a lot of money that could be better spent on existing infrastructure.

I am always blown away by just how long it will take to build, I get exited about "1 hour from Manchester to London" then I read it won't be done until I am nearly at retirement age...

It will create jobs, which is always good and it's nice to see the Torys giving a shit about the North (even if it's for other reasons), the objections from those who live in posh as fuck rural areas that it will "ruin the area" are as selfish as you can imagine.

As for the money being spent elsewhere, well I don't disagree but our rail system is fucking crap mostly now and making Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds areas where someone who works in London can live is amazing for those areas when you think about it.

The fact that he can afford it might mean we should look at MP's salaries though

Didn't Clegg make a ton of money in the Private Sector though?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Didn't Clegg make a ton of money in the Private Sector though?

I don't know. Absolutely fine with it if that's the case.

 

[Incontinentia Buttocks]

I am always blown away by just how long it will take to build, I get exited about "1 hour from Manchester to London" then I read it won't be done until I am nearly at retirement age...

It will create jobs, which is always good and it's nice to see the Torys giving a shit about the North (even if it's for other reasons), the objections from those who live in posh as fuck rural areas that it will "ruin the area" are as selfish as you can imagine.

As for the money being spent elsewhere, well I don't disagree but our rail system is fucking crap mostly now and making Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds areas where someone who works in London can live is amazing for those areas when you think about it.



Didn't Clegg make a ton of money in the Private Sector though?

I meant spend it on the existing rail infrastructure, more than general infrastructure. Aren't there many places up North that are still awaiting electrification?

Being able to commute to London from Manchester does sound pretty good but I'm sure the season ticket prices will be eye wateringly expensive.

 

[SteveWD40]

I meant spend it on the existing rail infrastructure, more than general infrastructure. Aren't there many places up North that are still awaiting electrification?

Being able to commute to London from Manchester does sound pretty good but I'm sure the season ticket prices will be eye wateringly expensive.

Well HS2 benefits London as well, so no way would they take that cash and improve some dirty northern lines without it making Londoners lives better.

 

[Incontinentia Buttocks]

Well HS2 benefits London as well, so no way would they take that cash and improve some dirty northern lines without it making Londoners lives better.

We do have it tough.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Didn't Clegg make a ton of money in the Private Sector though?

I'm not sure that Clegg has ever had a private sector job let alone make a ton of money there. His wife is loaded though, she is a QC and a partner at a massive law firm.

 

[SteveWD40]

I'm not sure that Clegg has ever had a private sector job let alone make a ton of money there. His wife is loaded though, she is a QC and a partner at a massive law firm.

Could have sworn he worked in the EU and it wasn't for the govt, if not I stand corrected.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Could have sworn he worked in the EU and it wasn't for the govt, if not I stand corrected.

He worked for the EU in Belgium, which is public sector.

 

[SteveWD40]

He worked for the EU in Belgium, which is public sector.

Ah my bad, could have sworn I read he was a consultant.

either way, he married well so can send his kids to the Moon for all I care.

 

[kmag]

Clegg, like the proper tory boy he really is, is rich. His Dad, Nicholas Peter Clegg, CBE is the Chairman of United Trust Bank.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think HS2 is more likely to make people want to commute to London, not away from it. It's hard to see how it'll help business grow in Manchester etc.

 

[SteveWD40]

I think HS2 is more likely to make people want to commute to London, not away from it. It's hard to see how it'll help business grow in Manchester etc.

It will gentrify more areas than already are being, when more people move here to commute and improve the areas they live in. Manchester citys expansion is helping but can only do so much.

Companies could also base themselves here / have satellite offices here and not be cut off.

 

[defel]

Its a shame that the government cant speed up the development of HS2. I did read in the Economist a few months back that the Chinese government have been letting safety standards slip in order the meet their insatiable desire to built new high-speed transit systems throughout the country. In this case they were using below grade concrete. Maybe its for the best that it takes as long as it needs to take.

I wish the government would pull their finger out and build that third runway already though.

 

[PJV3]

Its a shame that the government cant speed up the development of HS2. I did read in the Economist a few months back that the Chinese government have been letting safety standards slip in order the meet their insatiable desire to built new high-speed transit systems throughout the country. In this case they were using below grade concrete. Maybe its for the best that it takes as long as it needs to take.

I wish the government would pull their finger out and build that third runway already though.

What will happen in SW London if they go for Boris's white elephant? So many businesses from hotels to engineering companies are going to move out.

 

[CyclopsRock]

What will happen in SW London if they go for Boris's white elephant? So many companies from hotels to engineering companies are going to move out.

South West? It's Heathrow that'll close, not Gatwick.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

What will happen in SW London if they go for Boris's white elephant? So many companies from hotels to engineering companies are going to move out.

Not if they turn Heathrow into an industrial and science park. Keep an airstrip there for cargo and private planes.

 

[PJV3]

South West? It's Heathrow that'll close, not Gatwick.

Yeah I should have removed the S, I live in the south west of London, and it's part of everyday life still.
So many people work there from round here.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Not if they turn Heathrow into an industrial and science park. Keep an airstrip there for cargo and private planes.

With its amazing connections to London, it could become a hell of a commuter town too, if they do it right. In the context of whole bits of large infrastructure being ripped out of one area and placed into another, it's about as "good" as it cane be.

 

[PJV3]

With its amazing connections to London, it could become a hell of a commuter town too, if they do it right. In the context of whole bits of large infrastructure being ripped out of one area and placed into another, it's about as "good" as it cane be.

A lot of companies are going to spend cash simply relocating that could be better spent. Then again that's better than them hoarding it.
It just seems incredibly expensive moving the whole thing from one side of London to the other and building an island, when the cash could be better spent elsewhere around the country.

Also a lot of people will have a fit when they see the transport plans that go with the new airport. Extensive is putting it mildly.

 

[defel]

Id like to know whether the economists in the government have been weighing up the relative costs and benefits of a Thames Estuary airport versus Heathrow expansion. Taking an uneducated guess Id imagine that the Heathrow expansion is far more economically viable. Any info from your end on this zomgwtfbbq?

Spoiler

You'll always be Bender to me

 

[PJV3]

Id like to know whether the economists in the government have been weighing up the relative costs and benefits of a Thames Estuary airport versus Heathrow expansion. Taking an uneducated guess Id imagine that the Heathrow expansion is far more economically viable. Any info from your end on this zomgwtfbbq?

Spoiler

You'll always be Bender to me

PREPARE FOR DATA BLAST.

oops!
I meant in a good way, it looks a little bit sarcastic in all caps.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think most people agree it's a matter of short term needs vs long term needs. The long term ones tend to get kicked into the tall grass. Like Osborne was saying on TV this morning re: HS2, building something like the M25 isn't exactly palatable, but it's good that they did. Perhaps building a new airport is the same? It's not that the traffic wouldn't "go" without the M25, but it makes transport a lot easier.

Plus, regarding the London/SW vs Elsewhere, I think you have to build transport infrastructure for where people want to go, not the other way around.

 

[PJV3]

I think most people agree it's a matter of short term needs vs long term needs. The long term ones tend to get kicked into the tall grass. Like Osborne was saying on TV this morning re: HS2, building something like the M25 isn't exactly palatable, but it's good that they did. Perhaps building a new airport is the same? It's not that the traffic wouldn't "go" without the M25, but it makes transport a lot easier.

Plus, regarding the London/SW vs Elsewhere, I think you have to build transport infrastructure for where people want to go, not the other way around.

I can agree with all of that. The motivation for the new airport seems to be in part a political one (not upsetting voters in key seats) which is sort of okay. And the south east liking all the money, but not what goes with it. Which might become galling in other parts of the country.

 

[Chili]

I am quite surprised just how the Thames Estuary idea has gathered steam and become a full-blown alternative to Heathrow expansion. People make Heathrow out to be some sort of hell-on-earth. Perhaps it was (I remember when I was younger it was a grueling experience) but with T5 and the rest of the terminals being revamped it was come a long way in terms of passenger congestion, but air and ground congestion remains a huge problem. Build the third runway to ease this and the airport is perfectly serviceable.

The biggest problem I have with the Thames Estuary airport is it would actually be quite far from London. At least Heathrow is within the bounds of the M25, even if that is now its biggest hindrance for expansion. It does need some new transport links from central London, hopefully Crossrail will be an improvement from Heathrow Express.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Id like to know whether the economists in the government have been weighing up the relative costs and benefits of a Thames Estuary airport versus Heathrow expansion. Taking an uneducated guess Id imagine that the Heathrow expansion is far more economically viable. Any info from your end on this zomgwtfbbq?

Spoiler

You'll always be Bender to me

Yes, there has and yes it is. A third runway would be very cheap and almost all funding would come from the private sector without requiring state guarantees. BAA are ready with £8.5bn in capital to make a third runway happen within a year of receiving planning consent. If the Tories were to win a majority in 2015, and gave consent on the release of the current report we would have a third runway ready to go by the end of 2016.

This should be an interim solution anyway, we need a permanent fix for this, and that means a 6 runway behemoth somewhere within reach of central London.

 

[kitch9]

Clegg, like the proper tory boy he really is, is rich. His Dad, Nicholas Peter Clegg, CBE is the Chairman of United Trust Bank.

Jealous are we?

 

[kurtrussell]

Interesting news to hear that 59% support the idea of limiting what benefits can be spent on.

Seems only fair that if you're not actually earning the money, you shouldn't be spending it on luxury items like cigarettes, lottery tickets and Sky TV. I'll be interested to hear the Labour response on this one - after all the efforts to rebrand themselves away from the "party of the workshy and lazy", it could potentially cost them votes amongst the employed if they are seen to rally against the wishes of the majority of the British public.

 

[Incontinentia Buttocks]

Interesting news to hear that 59% support the idea of limiting what benefits can be spent on.

Seems only fair that if you're not actually earning the money, you shouldn't be spending it on luxury items like cigarettes, lottery tickets and Sky TV. I'll be interested to hear the Labour response on this one - after all the efforts to rebrand themselves away from the "party of the workshy and lazy", it could potentially cost them votes amongst the employed if they are seen to rally against the wishes of the majority of the British public.

That's a recipe for trouble if ever I heard one. Will never happen.

 

[PJV3]

Interesting news to hear that 59% support the idea of limiting what benefits can be spent on.

Seems only fair that if you're not actually earning the money, you shouldn't be spending it on luxury items like cigarettes, lottery tickets and Sky TV. I'll be interested to hear the Labour response on this one - after all the efforts to rebrand themselves away from the "party of the workshy and lazy", it could potentially cost them votes amongst the employed if they are seen to rally against the wishes of the majority of the British public.

I can understand the desire to control the spending of gamblers and drug addicts, to save them from themselves so to speak. but frankly there are bigger things to worry about. There's enough stress with losing your job, without being made to feel like the taxpayers bitch.

Most people aren't abusing benefits and have contributed to the system, give them some dignity and treat them like adults.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Interesting news to hear that 59% support the idea of limiting what benefits can be spent on.

Seems only fair that if you're not actually earning the money, you shouldn't be spending it on luxury items like cigarettes, lottery tickets and Sky TV. I'll be interested to hear the Labour response on this one - after all the efforts to rebrand themselves away from the "party of the workshy and lazy", it could potentially cost them votes amongst the employed if they are seen to rally against the wishes of the majority of the British public.

no way of doing this without humiliating and degrading the recipients of welfare, don't want.

 

[PJV3]

no way of doing this without humiliating and degrading the recipients of welfare, don't want.

Next they will start inspecting their houses, and remove anything too fancy.

 

[kurtrussell]

Most people aren't abusing benefits and have contributed to the system, give them some dignity and treat them like adults.

So it's fair that someone who works a full time job and can't afford Sky TV should pay money into a system that allows a benefit recipient to not work and afford Sky TV?

I earn an above average wage, and even I am questioning things like fibre broadband and Sky TV in the current climate, so I have no clue how those who are on less money can afford it. If the majority of benefits claimants don't currently subscribe to Sky TV, then surely there'll be no impact in restriction?

 

[War Peaceman]

It does more harm than good. Businesses lose out on that money, it would be difficult to implement* and is humiliating.

Obviously people with less money should be prioritising their spending more efficiently, but I do not think this is fair, moral or effective.

*As in, how do you decide what is and isn't acceptable.

EDIT: The majority of people on unemployment benefits won't be paying for Sky. You don't set policy based on a minority.

 

[anonymous_abc]

So it's fair that someone who works a full time job and can't afford Sky TV should pay money into a system that allows a benefit recipient to not work and afford Sky TV?

I earn an above average wage, and even I am questioning things like fibre broadband and Sky TV in the current climate, so I have no clue how those who are on less wages can afford it. If the majority of benefits claimants don't currently subscribe to Sky TV, then surely there'll be no impact in restriction?

so what you expect sky to ask everyone who wants to sign up, "are you recipient of state welfare?"

I seriously doubt its a widespread problem.
and if someone on minimum social welfare decides to spend his/her money on sky, I am sure they will have to abstain from many other things in order to pay for it.

 

[kurtrussell]

so what you expect sky to ask everyone who wants to sign up, "are you recipient of state welfare?"

No, but the whole point of unemployment benefit is to support someone and assist them in finding work - therefore, I'd support the idea of unemployment benefit being food credit + a smaller amount of cash for clothes, job interviews, associated expenses. No matter what the circumstances behind someone's unemployment and no matter how unfortunate a situation it is for that person, it is still completely unacceptable for them to fritter the money away on things like pay TV subscriptions, tobacco and lottery tickets.

 

[PJV3]

No, but the whole point of unemployment benefit is to support someone and assist them in finding work - therefore, I'd support the idea of unemployment benefit being food credit + a smaller amount of cash for clothes, job interviews, associated expenses. No matter what the circumstances behind someone's unemployment and no matter how unfortunate a situation it is for that person, it is still completely unacceptable for them to fritter the money away on things like pay TV subscriptions, tobacco and lottery tickets.

And most people pay into that system, leave them alone.

 

[War Peaceman]

No, but the whole point of unemployment benefit is to support someone and assist them in finding work - therefore, I'd support the idea of unemployment benefit being food credit + a smaller amount of cash for clothes, job interviews, associated expenses. No matter what the circumstances behind someone's unemployment and no matter how unfortunate a situation it is for that person, it is still completely unacceptable for them to fritter the money away on things like pay TV subscriptions, tobacco and lottery tickets.

You can't just live like that with absolutely no means of entertainment/life. There has to be some enjoyment in life. Plus the reality is that most people on social security do not fritter away their money, the money simply isn't there to do that. This amounts to (ignoring cases of fraud, which is different) scapegoating those without jobs. If the income difference between the average and the disadvantaged is so low, perhaps the solution is for a higher minimum wage, ie trying to improve things for people.

At the same time I do think people (especially where such things could be more easily controlled) should be discouraged from purchasing tobacco and lottery tickets, so I can't say I am entirely consistent on this.

 

[Incontinentia Buttocks]

George Galloway got a roasting in PMQ today. Such a twat.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

And most people pay into that system, leave them alone.

How about a system where people who have paid into the system don't have any restrictions but people who have not and are lifetime benefits claimants get vouchers?

 

[PJV3]

How about a system where people who have paid into the system don't have any restrictions but people who have not and are lifetime benefits claimants get vouchers?

I would support more positive action, forcing them into education, gaining skills, and if they are addicts, treating them. Yes I would ban Sky, but that would be for everybody.

 

[anonymous_abc]

How about a system where people who have paid into the system don't have any restrictions but people who have not and are lifetime benefits claimants get vouchers?

yea because they all chose that life!

 

[Kelthink]

No, but the whole point of unemployment benefit is to support someone and assist them in finding work - therefore, I'd support the idea of unemployment benefit being food credit + a smaller amount of cash for clothes, job interviews, associated expenses. No matter what the circumstances behind someone's unemployment and no matter how unfortunate a situation it is for that person, it is still completely unacceptable for them to fritter the money away on things like pay TV subscriptions, tobacco and lottery tickets.

Fritter? Christ on a bike, unemployment is an horrible situation, especially when there are so few jobs. Don't make it worse for them.

 

[War Peaceman]

How about a system where people who have paid into the system don't have any restrictions but people who have not and are lifetime benefits claimants get vouchers?

This would not help the unemployed youth who are some of the more important people to be put into jobs.

Again, limiting people's ability to spend will have a knock on effect for businesses. Which does nobody any good. If limitations were to be implemented, I'd rather they were to foreign goods. Obviously not a practical solution, though.

EDIT: The problem with the idea in general is that it does not help people into getting a job. It just punishes people for being unemployed, which in most cases is not their fault. Time and attention should be paid to creating more opportunities for work, not punishing those who can't find it.

 

[anonymous_abc]

This would not help the unemployed youth who are some of the more important people to be put into jobs.

Again, limiting people's ability to spend will have a knock on effect for businesses. Which does nobody any good. If limitations were to be implemented, I'd rather they were to foreign goods. Obviously not a practical solution, though.

this is getting better and better...

 

[TCRS]

Germany even used to have 20 euros from the unemployment allowance (~€360/month afaik) earmarked for alcohol and tobacco. It was seen as an essential part for living a somehwat dignified life and taking part in society. It was however cut in the last reform, which had more to do with politics than anything else.

But I am in favour of restricting gambling for benefit receivers.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I would support more positive action, forcing them into education, gaining skills, and if they are addicts, treating them.

Well we do that stuff already. If I walked into an employment agency and told them I was jobless and had no skills there are any number of courses I could sign up to paid for by the government. As for drug and alcohol addiction, it's a tough one because a lot of the time it is more expensive to treat them than to just leave them on benefits. I think that's stupid because someone who is an addict is not going to be a productive member of society and the long term benefits of treating someone are much greater. I think IDS sees the same argument so there is action on treating addiction, but it's slow.

 

[War Peaceman]

this is getting better and better...

Ok, good response. My point - and I explicitly said that it was not practicable - was to try and stimulate domestic businesses rather than Amazon or other outside businesses. Not xenophobia.

 

[heliconsoul]

This really is taking a turn for the Daily Mail.

I'd be pretty sure 99.9% of people who find themselves on benefits don't immediately think "Wow now I can use my dole on Sky, awesome!" The cost in policing it, or even coming up with a hare-brained voucher scheme would surely offset any saving?

But hey, lets alienate those people genuinely trying to find work even more eh?