JonathanEx
Member
Oh, they're terrible. CiN more so. But it's hard not to grab a beer, sit in front of the telly, moan at the quality, mute the appeals and donate bugger all.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
radioheadrule83
Banned
My mum raised £1600 in one day by doing a bake sale and organising a small funday event in work, she also got Christopher Eccleston's signature on a CiN poster and sold it for £40 -- he was filming outside St George's Hall in Liverpool for a new BBC drama called The Fuse.
It made me wonder why people aren't just selling cakes and having fun all of the time!
It made me wonder why people aren't just selling cakes and having fun all of the time!
JonathanEx
Member
Singing could still happen.PJV3 said:
He stopped at my uni earlier in the week. Fair play to him, it's one hell of a challenge, but there was something funny about people turning up expecting him to arrive live on The One Show at 7pm. He turned up at 10pm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15790806
I found this article, coupled with the picture and caption MASSIVELY HILARIOUS
God what a fucking stupid idea
I found this article, coupled with the picture and caption MASSIVELY HILARIOUS
God what a fucking stupid idea
JonathanEx
Member
It's not like she's suggesting that they should subsidise putting down the fifth child.
Yet.
Yet.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Meadows said:
You did see the thread where Congress are classifying Pizza as a vegetable right?
I'd like the idea of a cap if it actually made people act responsibility, but if people just go ahead and have more kids anyway, then you're just penalising the kids. Her face in the article picture is pretty much Tory Trollface. I'd be interested to know how many benefit claimants actually have 4 or more kids.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Meadows said:
I'd rate that as a decent policy. In fact I would make it three or even two kids. The taxpayer should not be subsidising lifestyle choices of other people.
I would also move to a tax allowance based system so that only working parents benefit from tax incentives to have children, incentivising non-working couples to have children is a disaster area policy in the long term as it increases welfare dependency. The government could even phase it's introduction in over a number of years so that child poverty targets are met.
radioheadrule83 said:
It said in the article that 50,000 families would be effected by the change.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Sorry yeah, I suppose I meant proportionally - like what proportion of claims are resultant from people with 4 or more kids. If it's not a large proportion of claimants then its probably just one of those Hugh Abbot-esque policies designed purely to appeal to peoples sense of moral outrage that destitute people are bringing kids they can't support into the world.
How's the head today by the way?
How's the head today by the way?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
radioheadrule83 said:
Of course with the upper limit set to four I expect it would be a policy aimed more at the Daily Rant crowd than saving money and encouraging sensible lifestyles.
Head was pretty dead this morning, but lots of water and a pub lunch was very helpful!
PJV3
Member
Yeah Pickles, i bet its for unity.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/18/pickles-curry-college-intergration-strategy
The communities secretary, Eric Pickles, is to make a UK curry college to teach British workers the secret of perfect pakoras a showpiece of the government's integration strategy to be published shortly.
Fat bastard. (joking)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/18/pickles-curry-college-intergration-strategy
The communities secretary, Eric Pickles, is to make a UK curry college to teach British workers the secret of perfect pakoras a showpiece of the government's integration strategy to be published shortly.
Fat bastard. (joking)
Decent idea that curry college. Fact is, and it is a fact, that a great deal of Chinese/Indian restaurant owners dodge taxes and just employ people from their country of origin (using that weird loophole where an ethnic restaurant doesn't have to bother about discriminating against race because of ethnic authenticity or whatever).
God knows how many illegal immigrants work in the backs of takeaway places around the country.
edit:
Just realised it sounded a bit UKIPy, when in fact I'm in favour of increasing our amount of legal immigrants! Imo, if we cut down on the amount of illegal immigrants/low skilled immigrants and bring over some skilled workers who pay a decent tax rate, then the job's a goodun, reward them with citizenship if they work in the UK for 5 years and pay a certain % in tax.
God knows how many illegal immigrants work in the backs of takeaway places around the country.
edit:
Just realised it sounded a bit UKIPy, when in fact I'm in favour of increasing our amount of legal immigrants! Imo, if we cut down on the amount of illegal immigrants/low skilled immigrants and bring over some skilled workers who pay a decent tax rate, then the job's a goodun, reward them with citizenship if they work in the UK for 5 years and pay a certain % in tax.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15790806
Just like to say again that this QT is pretty good, 40 mins in and it's revolved around the Eurozone and general economic news. Don't know what the put in Aberystwyth's water but the audience are a pretty decent bunch who don't babble on about inane things for ages. Panel's alright too, (although relatively low league).
Must say that Elin Jones is a cracking politician, compare her as a female politician to all these American nutters like Bachmann and Palin and you see why we're more stable as a country! Hope she gets the position as Plaid Cymru leader.
Just like to say again that this QT is pretty good, 40 mins in and it's revolved around the Eurozone and general economic news. Don't know what the put in Aberystwyth's water but the audience are a pretty decent bunch who don't babble on about inane things for ages. Panel's alright too, (although relatively low league).
Must say that Elin Jones is a cracking politician, compare her as a female politician to all these American nutters like Bachmann and Palin and you see why we're more stable as a country! Hope she gets the position as Plaid Cymru leader.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
So, good news. Steve Hilton, George Osborne, Francis Maude and Justine Greening have won their battle with the Lib Dems. They are killing off HS2 (£37bn train line to Birmingham that is about 10-15mins faster than the current one) in favour of a new airport with 4-6 runways so that airlines can run multiple direct flights to almost every major destination in the world. For example, we can't get to Jakarta directly from the UK at the moment BA go via Hong Kong and other airlines go via Frankfurt or Paris. Indonesia had massive GDP growth last year and they need engineering and scientific expertise from the west. Without a proper direct flight to the UK they will not come here for those services. That is just a single example of where we are losing the international trade fight against the US and Germany. We have one of the greatest engineering industries in the world but it's no use if the customers can't get to it. 
I probably spend about two months of the year in Asia and 10% of my working life in airports, the UK has easily got the worst airports infrastructure of all major EU countries and Asian countries. A new airport in London would be a godsend for business in the UK, the number of times we get companies looking for overseas investment (which is what we facilitate basically) but can't get it because investors can't get here easily. It might seem like a small thing, but it really, really isn't. We need this to jump start our economy, the infrastructure spending will bring extra jobs in construction, we already have the expertise from the T5 build so we won't need to import it. The private sector could easily get £25-30bn together for the airport itself and the government would need to spend £20-25bn on roads and rail infrastructure to it. It is a small price for the amount of growth it will bring. London is the defacto capital of Europe, the UK must not lose this status because of a small thing like lack of air capacity, it would be a disaster for the whole country (not just the city).
I probably spend about two months of the year in Asia and 10% of my working life in airports, the UK has easily got the worst airports infrastructure of all major EU countries and Asian countries. A new airport in London would be a godsend for business in the UK, the number of times we get companies looking for overseas investment (which is what we facilitate basically) but can't get it because investors can't get here easily. It might seem like a small thing, but it really, really isn't. We need this to jump start our economy, the infrastructure spending will bring extra jobs in construction, we already have the expertise from the T5 build so we won't need to import it. The private sector could easily get £25-30bn together for the airport itself and the government would need to spend £20-25bn on roads and rail infrastructure to it. It is a small price for the amount of growth it will bring. London is the defacto capital of Europe, the UK must not lose this status because of a small thing like lack of air capacity, it would be a disaster for the whole country (not just the city).
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
The BritGAF thread got locked, so it can seep in at times.
frankie_baby
Member
So, good news. Steve Hilton, George Osborne, Francis Maude and Justine Greening have won their battle with the Lib Dems. They are killing off HS2 (£37bn train line to Birmingham that is about 10-15mins faster than the current one) in favour of a new airport with 4-6 runways so that airlines can run multiple direct flights to almost every major destination in the world. For example, we can't get to Jakarta directly from the UK at the moment BA go via Hong Kong and other airlines go via Frankfurt or Paris. Indonesia had massive GDP growth last year and they need engineering and scientific expertise from the west. Without a proper direct flight to the UK they will not come here for those services. That is just a single example of where we are losing the international trade fight against the US and Germany. We have one of the greatest engineering industries in the world but it's no use if the customers can't get to it.
I probably spend about two months of the year in Asia and 10% of my working life in airports, the UK has easily got the worst airports infrastructure of all major EU countries and Asian countries. A new airport in London would be a godsend for business in the UK, the number of times we get companies looking for overseas investment (which is what we facilitate basically) but can't get it because investors can't get here easily. It might seem like a small thing, but it really, really isn't. We need this to jump start our economy, the infrastructure spending will bring extra jobs in construction, we already have the expertise from the T5 build so we won't need to import it. The private sector could easily get £25-30bn together for the airport itself and the government would need to spend £20-25bn on roads and rail infrastructure to it. It is a small price for the amount of growth it will bring. London is the defacto capital of Europe, the UK must not lose this status because of a small thing like lack of air capacity, it would be a disaster for the whole country (not just the city).
where did you see this? i've seen about them being in favour of the airport but nothing about cancelling high speed 2, both projects are vital
zomgbbqftw
Banned
It's from a political source I have in the Treasury. They don't want the train line, Osborne doesn't want it because according to their internal predictions the train line has an economic growth addition of "up to 3% over 10 years" whereas a new airport has "at least 11% over 10 years". Britain can only afford a single big infrastructure project over the next 10 years, it would be insanity to pick the one with lower growth prospects. The last member of the group they need to capture is David Cameron and I expect they will have a nice infrastructure review delaying HS2 and looking at a new airport, it will report in maybe 2013 saying that there is not a real economic case for the train line but there is for a new airport. The government will then put the plan into action and start the tender process in 2015/16. The only issue is that they will spend up to £1bn on HS2 only to cancel it which is a lot of money wasted.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I heard there are a few proposals, the Thames Estuary is currently second and there is also a proposal to build one on shore east of Chelmsford in the massive empty space which is gaining traction as well. The "Heathwick" idea is dead as it only gives 10-20% extra capacity, a new airport gives 150-200m annual air capacity (Heathrow is at 98% capcity at 65m annual passengers) so you we could ostensibly close Heathrow and Gatwick (30m) but still have more than double the capacity in just a single airport.
Our current air travel policy is choking the economy, of that I have no doubt and the other area of policy that the government needs to look at is energy policy (get fracking with the natural gas in rocks under Blackpool). If they successfully address both I believe the government can easily add 5% onto growth by the end of 2014/15 and have a massive boost to job creation in the oil and gas sector (our second biggest industry after finance) and international investment from the prospect of increased air capacity by the end of 2020 (just by having the firm intention to build a new airport UK companies can attract easy investment from abroad) along with £30-40bn in private investment on the airport itself.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Part of the reason the North doesn't currently do well out of extra London air capacity is because Heathrow is a terrible airport to get to for anyone not in London or the South. A new airport would have proper travel links by road, air and rail. With extra capacity in one unit people from the north will no longer have to travel to Stansted then use public transportation to get to Heathrow possibly missing their flight in the process. Everything can be done all in one ticket Leeds/Manchester/Birmingham -> London International -> Intercontinental flights, currently it is Leeds/Manchester/Birmingham -> Stansted (collect baggage) -> Trains/underground -> Heathrow (check in) -> Intercontinental flights. That's fine for holiday makers and regular travel, but for business travellers, they don't do that in reverse to get to the north, they will just stay in London. If we can make it easier to get from intercontinental destinations to the north by air (no stupid intra-London travel) business will follow. If the government back it up with enterprise zones and lower corporation tax and great capital allowances for northern cities the boost to jobs and growth will be huge. A train line doesn't achieve this, it may bring some extra domestic investment to Birmingham but even that is not guaranteed, in France the provincial cities connected up to Paris by TGV actually experienced local economic contraction as local money and investment drained into Paris. It definitely doesn't bring international investment on the same scale of as an airport, and that is what we really need.
The airport is essential for sure, but a train line which brings journey times from London to Birmingham from 1h20m down to a possible 1h08m is not essential, especially at a cost of £37bn.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
At the moment it takes 1h20m from Euston to Birmingham, a direct (as in no stops in between) High Speed train would take about 50mins, but the route picked with the stops will be 1h-1h10m depending on line traffic. It definitely isn't going to cut the journey time in half.
Ah, I didnt think they were planning to have stops on the line. I've not read into it for a while, I just remember it being all over the local news when it was first announced.
PJV3
Member
There is a dispute about figures, opponents include the new Birmingham station being 10 minutes walk away from centre of town. Both sides have valid points but nothing is perfect.
travisbickle
Member
I was ridiculed a couple of months back, in this very topic, for saying spend money to improve the economy. Now we're all talking about airports and fancy railways!!
Also, I think it's worth the Tories learning to understand the psychology of an unemployed family having 4+ children. Cutting off benefits won't stop it from happening, they don't think like accountants they can't figure out the numbers.
PJV3
Member
I didn't bother quoting the story yesterday but if the government go ahead with the plan of doctors no longer being able to sign people off sick for longer than 4 weeks, then life is going to become pretty miserable for a lot of ill people. My wife has real and multiple medical problems and being able to make the interview with the "independent" assessor was basically enough to have her kicked off the benefit. We will have doctors behaving like accountants sorting out budgets, and bean counters deciding medical matters.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/nov/19/sick-leave-independent-assessors-report?INTCMP=SRCH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/nov/19/sick-leave-independent-assessors-report?INTCMP=SRCH
frankie_baby
Member
You're being a bit dodgy with your figures about the train line, first its not just about bringing down journey times its also about vastly increasing capacity for our over crowded train network and 2nd the thirty or so billion figure isn't just for the line to Birmingham (I'd be surprised if that bit even came to half that) but for the full network stretching up into the north west and yorkshire
Instead of linking up the country you know what we should do?!?! GIVE LONDON ANOTHER AIRPORT!!!!! BLUE SKY THINKING!!!
Yes, it's not the biggest cut in time between London and Brum, but then it's meant to extend onto Manchester and Leeds, and then onto Glasgow. Doing that would make the UK a MUCH smaller place and increase equality throughout the country and close the (currently widening) North-South divide.
But no, investment bankers' time is worth far more than us mere mortals'. God forbid the one time of the year they have to go to Indonesia they have to take a train/plane to Paris to get there.
Yes, it's not the biggest cut in time between London and Brum, but then it's meant to extend onto Manchester and Leeds, and then onto Glasgow. Doing that would make the UK a MUCH smaller place and increase equality throughout the country and close the (currently widening) North-South divide.
But no, investment bankers' time is worth far more than us mere mortals'. God forbid the one time of the year they have to go to Indonesia they have to take a train/plane to Paris to get there.
frankie_baby
Member
Personally I think both need doing and need doing fast
PJV3
Member
You're just being awkward, Move inside the M25 you selfish sod.
travisbickle
Member
Meadow and zomg, fight, fight, fight!!
J Tourettes
Banned
Fuck the HS2, the figures on that have been cooked to fuck for ages.
frankie_baby
Member
What so you'd rather the only high speed line in the country was the line out of it?
PJV3
Member
On a serious note, air traffic is set to double within 20 years, so should we really be encouraging it? Reminds me of the old Ben Elton joke about kitchen bins, if you put a 2nd bin next to your first one, you end up with 2 full bins. Demands on oil, enviroment, safety in the skies etc. I live under the Heathrow flightpath so moving it 40 miles to the east of London suits me from a selfish standpoint.
J Tourettes
Banned
It's also the line in.
While I'm kinda in favour of HS2 (and of course against the new airport), I still think the HS2 money would be better spent in local transport. If Greater Manchester's Metrolink got it's fair share of funding it'd actually make the city a nicer place to live, and cut down the fucking horrific M60 traffic. In fact, if you just gave the councils the money that would be spent on the airport/HS2 then a fair number of them could socialise/subsidise local bus/train schemes and provide cheaper inter-town/city travel.
My hometown Warrington has the only bus system in the country that is council owned and ran and was chosen as the best bus system in the country a couple of years ago, and it's really cheap too.
My hometown Warrington has the only bus system in the country that is council owned and ran and was chosen as the best bus system in the country a couple of years ago, and it's really cheap too.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Socialising travel has continuing annual costs associated, what happens when the money set aside for HS2/Airport runs out, do the council stop subsidising the services or cut elsewhere to keep them going?
Again, that will not do anything for the economy or jobs which is what the country really needs right now. UK growth has died in the last year and like it or not the EU economy is set to explode and send a billion pieces of economic shrapnel in our direction. We need to be able to get more trade and investment from outside of Europe and the easiest way to do that is a to have basically unlimited air capacity to London and connecting it up with the rest of the country properly (unlike Heathrow which is terrible) so that the benefits are spread everywhere rather than confined to just London (Heathrow) or a small corridor between London and Birmingham (HS2).
To address your earlier rant, it's not about UK business people getting out of the country and having to spend a couple of hours in Frankfurt (really, it's a small issue, almost non-existent) it is about international investor and business people being put off coming to the London and ending their journeys in Frankfurt or Paris, or if they do decide to slog it to London they invariably don't bother leaving because getting to anywhere else in the country from the airport they land in is too much of a mission. The only easy part of the country to get to from Heathrow (other than London) is the West of England and Wales, the Midlands, North East and North West are basically impossible to get to from Heathrow directly because there is not enough air capacity to take too many domestic flights in Heathrow, most of them got to Edinburgh, Belfast and Manchester. That leaves out regional airports like Leeds, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bradford and Sunderland, international investment rarely reaches these regions because of the terrible journey from Heathrow to them. The only way to get there is by train or by going to Stansted, neither of which is really something international businesspeople are going to bother with when they can just as easily spend their time in London and invest in London.
A properly linked up airport with enough capacity to serve both domestic and intercontinental is what Britain has needed for the past 20 years and with every passing year it is becoming more urgent. London will be fine, but the rest of the UK will suffer as more and more investment stays within the limits of the M25.
You're talking bollocks mate, why would they take a flight as opposed to a high speed rail, they both take about the same time (with security and everything included) but one is much more pleasant and would benefit the rest of the economy.
But of course, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE IN LONDON
But of course, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE IN LONDON
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Because it's all part of the same ticket, you go from the same place to the next place. No dealing with shitty underground trying to get to Euston, no messing around with taxis, nothing. Plus security is a complete non-issue because you only go through once on the way in. A transfer to a domestic flight would not be subject to a second security check. Domestic air capacity from Heathrow is without a doubt limited and it does effect international investment outside of London. Ignoring the issue or pretending it doesn't exist while more and more people invest in London as opposed to the rest of the UK is fine with me as a Londoner, but it would continue to do massive harm to the rest of the UK.
You don't think like a businessperson, they invest where it is easy, they don't like silly barriers. Domestic people might use trains and whatever else to get to the rest of the country, but international people will fly and they will want to fly from where they land. I hear it from our clients all the time, not only those looking for investment, those who are looking to invest. But hey, don't listen to me or them, lets just spend billions on a train line that will not increase GDP growth and put us in hock to the French for the foreseeable future for railway engineering. Just remember that air and airports engineering is something that Britain is truly great at, it is a service we export all over the world, trains are no longer something we have expertise in and it is something we will need to import, especially if the French plans go ahead so TGV trains run all the way to Birmingham from Paris.
J Tourettes
Banned
Apart from the BBC.
I'm struggling to think of a single business opportunity that fell south because of the lack of air capacity for businessmen commuters within England. But I can think of a lot of things that would make a world-class high speed rail network pay its way.
The rail and road networks have been too long neglected. Anyone used the A32 lately? It's almost impossible to get out and into Gosport in rush-hour. Why? Because the rail line was closed years ago leaving 80,000 people needing to take a ferry to Portsmouth Harbour or pile onto the A32. That might just be one example, but that sort of thing has happened all over the country.
We don't have a joined-up policy for dealing with either commuter congestion or high speed city-to-city transport. We should be building new lines for trains, introducing new technologies as we do. We should be using tax and subsidy as tools to promote the use of flexible shifts, teleconferencing and home-working in corporations. We need to start building again, and if the French are the ones who build the best trains and lines then more power to them.
The rail and road networks have been too long neglected. Anyone used the A32 lately? It's almost impossible to get out and into Gosport in rush-hour. Why? Because the rail line was closed years ago leaving 80,000 people needing to take a ferry to Portsmouth Harbour or pile onto the A32. That might just be one example, but that sort of thing has happened all over the country.
We don't have a joined-up policy for dealing with either commuter congestion or high speed city-to-city transport. We should be building new lines for trains, introducing new technologies as we do. We should be using tax and subsidy as tools to promote the use of flexible shifts, teleconferencing and home-working in corporations. We need to start building again, and if the French are the ones who build the best trains and lines then more power to them.