Happy Christmas - and my images of the year. Enjoy ;)

House full of food but nothing to eat. #Christmas

Paying £40 for Turkey crowns that you'd never choose in a restaurant. #Christmas

Sausages wrapped in bacon are a delicacy? #Christmas

Buying a nut-cracker and nuts, just in case #Christmas

Pickled onions that no-one eats. Throwing cheese away on January 6th. #Christmas

Socks? Thanks. #Christmas

Family, together. Updating their news. Enjoying each others' company. I love Christmas. I hope you all have a great one. #Christmas

Just some of my images of the year, enjoy. ;)

Walruss' birthday

But I don't want to go home yet mum.

And a 21-year-old son. Wow.





























Happy Christmas one and all.

Is the arms industry making wars too easy to wage?

There was a time when going to war was an absolute last resort. It didn't, sadly, stop them from happening but it did mean that committing a country to war was a massive deal. An undertaking that meant massive mobilisation of troops and equipment; massive cost in financial terms and in human life on both sides.

It also meant that one would need a compelling argument to commit to war and then an overwhelming force that would not only win militarily, but would hopefully show the opponent that they had no real chance of victory and thereby shorten the conflict, saving lives and forcing the opponent to the negotiating table where proper peace agreements could be forged and future conflicts made less likely to occur. This approach to war afforded to us the most effective means of stopping conflict: deterrent.

Because the leaders knew that if we were so provoked that we would go to war, properly, that we would win it, and then make the changes needed to stop it at source - which would mean taking them and their regimes, out. Permanently.

It seems to me that what we now have - and this situation is proliferating - is technology such as drones and 'fire and forget' missiles made available to us by those nice people at Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems et. al., that allow politicians to wage war at the drop of a hat. This technology means few if any consequences for the lives of 'our' troops, but does not deliver a proper solution to the conflict; does not deter the leaders we are fighting against (who don't really give a toss for the lives of their 'troops') because it does not effect regime change or victory on the ground, instead it delivers pin pricks against the enemy and is then used against us to recruit more fodder for us to target with our technology.

I'm not saying that wars are always unnecessary, I'm no pacifist by any means (see my conclusion). But it seems to me that this technology is making it too easy to engage, and become embroiled in, conflicts that we have no real justification to be involved in and, increasingly, no clear objective position on the desired outcome. 'These horrible people are killing some other horrible people, so why don't we take a few of them out?'

This almost happened in Syria earlier this year. When there was no clear idea as to who the good guys or the bad guys were or what our overall objective was. More here. It also led, in the past few days, to a drone attack on an entirely innocent wedding convoy in Jordan in which 15 people were killed. It's become like playing Space Invaders from some desk in the Pentagon where it is not the countries involved we are trying to help or to target, but some small groups of people within those countries with whom we are in conflict.

Most importantly of all, it is not delivering any kind of solution to the prevailing conflict, just adding an additional - and deadly - and often indiscriminate, element to it.

Sooner or later we will have to go in to these war zones properly and whilst this might seem to be a contradiction in terms, we will have to 'impose' our freedoms upon their citizens and take away their ability to wage petty wars against each other. There is no other long-term solution and a few drone strikes or missile launches from offshore platforms are not helping at the moment.

Technology cannot be 'un-invented'. Nuclear war had attached to it the ultimate deterrent of complete annihilation. But drones do not. This makes the former much less likely to become reality, but the latter much more likely to be used.

How long will it be before the bad guys get drones to use?

At the moment we're fiddling while Damascus and many other places burn. We are, in my opinion, putting off the inevitable. We need to find a true solution to conflict, particularly in the Middle East. It seems to me that negotiation doesn't work against some people particularly when they feel that they have nothing left to lose and when their 'religion' (as delivered to them by those in power) tells them that they will receive their reward in heaven for waging a holy war.

You can't win against these people with a few drone-delivered pin pricks. You have to achieve a proper solution which means a fundamental change to their societies and the way they are governed. It also means delivering prosperity, purpose, opportunity and freedom to their ordinary citizens. A tall order, but the alternative is a never ending cycle of war, conflict and then aid. We're almost certainly spending more on this than it would cost to bring these countries and peoples into the first world in terms of business, industry, prosperity and opportunity.

In my opinion it is time for us to stop fucking about (technical term) and to look towards a proper solution for the good of the whole world. More on the same subject, related to Syria, and thinking the unthinkable, here.

Thanks for reading.

Is the 'Religion of Peace' all it's cracked up to be?

OK let's get the caveats out of the way first. I am not anti-Muslem or racist in any way. I am pro freedom of choice and expression and I live in - and enjoy - a diverse society. I don't impose my views of the world on anybody; you don't have to agree with what I'm saying, that's entirely your choice. I will not threaten, much less carry out, any act of violence upon you if you have a different view. But I do expect the same respect from you in return.

I think that's fair don't you? I will not tell you how to live your life and, in return, I don't expect you to tell me how to live mine - so long as both are within the long-established laws of the land in which we both live. After all, we have both chosen to live here and we could chose to live somewhere else if we really wanted to.

I am not anti any individual, or family or race or creed but I have a serious question (see title) that I think is worthy of being asked.

Most (if not all?) religions were 'created' (by men) when the prevailing belief was that the world was flat and that we were the centre of the universe. That's not necessarily a criticism, but a plain fact. They were devised in times long ago, when our knowledge of science was much more limited than it is today. They were also devised when establishing control and a 'common purpose' (how ironic that phrase seems today) was vital to our survival as a species.

Working together toward a common goal (instead of just fighting each other for today's 'catch' of food) was critical to man's survival and prosperity. And we've done pretty well out of that approach.

Generally speaking religion has lessened in importance over time. The need for control over people in that way, has reduced. Once we had proper laws and governments, accountability and representation, police forces, laws, and latterly surveillance; religion, quite rightly, has taken more of a back seat. That is not to say that it is irrelevant now. There are hundreds of millions of believers out there who take solace and value from their beliefs. And good for them.

But in our modern, scientific world, many people take the view that 'this is it'. That it's not about a comfortable afterlife secured through piousness and good deeds in this one, but that this is your one shot at life, and that one should make the most of it.

This may not be true - there is no real proof - but it is marginally more likely than what religion tells us and, therefore every bit as worthy of our respect and acceptance as any religious doctrine. This is out of 'flow' in this piece I accept, but how does killing someone who doesn't share you view - essentially going against every tennet of 'God's teaching' - secure you a good place in the hereafter? That's just madness.

All of which brings me on to my point. Christianity has recognised that it can no longer impose belief upon people. It encourages one to choose its belief system. It does not force it upon you. Buddhism is about celebrating life and respect for others through spirituality. Neither comes with a threat that if you don't agree or support it you will be diminished, or ostracised or 'cast out'. Almost all religions take this approach in our modern world. It's about your choice and it is a voluntary committment because only by being voluntary can it be genuine.

Do you disagree with that? If so, I'm wasting my time, and so are you. Goodbye.

There is of course one religion that does not follow this logical, modern, respectful, inclusive-if-it's-your-choice stance.

One religion that has not lost over time it's pervasive, controlling, anti women (the others all used to be) stance. One religion whose doctrine advocates the allowance of 8 year old girls being married against their will. Of forced marriages. Of Female genital mutilation for the control of women. Of women being covered from head to toe in public at all times. And of non-belivers being killed for not believing. It is anti gay, anti alcohol, anti liberty and freedom. It is so insecure that it threatens death to anyone who criticises or pokes fun at it. It promises glory in the hereafter to people who kill non-believers. It places religious belief above that of nation states and nationally agreed, long developed and democratically arrived-at laws.

It wants to control what you do, think, say and believe. What your children are taught in schools. Mr Hitler would have had wet dreams about this stuff.

And it will be the dominant religion of the UK by 2050 if the government's own statistics are to be believed.

In a word Islamism is a medieval disaster that is threatening to take us back centuries in terms of our freedoms and lifestyle. And it is coming to a city, town, village near you. Soon.

And we're not resisting it. Oh no; we're welcoming it in with open arms. Paying for it's advocates to live amongst us and protecting it through anti-racism and 'respect' laws.

But then it is the 'Religion of Peace'.

Isn't it?

We're fucking mad as a fucking mad thing from Mad city. By the time we wake up to this shit it will be too late.

And those of us (you) who sat idly by will get what you deserve from your negligence. And will, no doubt, be the first to complain.

Thanks for reading.




       



   

 

I'm sick of being told I'm a racist

To be honest it doesn't happen very often. In fact it never has happened. But still...

Come round for a meal. If you'd like a glass of wine that's cool. If you're abstemious, that's fine. If you eat meat I can cook it. If you don't I do some great vegetarian stuff. Vegan if that's your thing. I like vegan, it's healthy and good and interesting - my daughter is a vegan and we all enjoy eating that way. It's not difficult, just veggie but no dairy. It's not rocket salad.

You'll be warmly welcomed. Whatever background you have, whoever your parents were, whatever your politics. Whatever the colour of your skin, wherever you're from. And nothing is off limits. If you want to talk about inequality, or the issue of race, or 'the nasty party', or God that's all just fine by me.

And we might disagree; the debate might be heated and passionate. I'll listen to your views and have an open mind about them. The deal is that you have to do the same. That's reasonable I'm sure you'd agree. Above all, I will respect what your views are - I might disagree with them, but you need to understand that that is my right just as I respect your views. I would not dream of trying to impose my views on life or my belief mechanisms on you and I'd humbly ask that you take the same approach.

The bottom line is that when you leave it will be as a friend. Someone who may have a different view of the world from mine, but who is nonetheless worthy of respect; sympathetic to the struggle of ordinary people like you and me.

That's all I ask. Is it too much?

Teachers: we, and the unions, are letting the good ones down

If you're a good, bright, motivated teacher keen to do well, keen to get the best out of your charges, (which is your job after all), what do you think about Mr Gove's initiative to reward the best and to drive up standards?

Wild guess here, but I'm thinking you might be pleased. You might welcome some recognition, some financial incentive to do your best. After all, as we are constantly told, every day of a child's education is valuable. So valuable in fact that schools are looking at fining parents who take their kids out of school in term time to take advantage of cheaper holidays. Every day is vital. And I agree wholeheartedly with that. At primary and secondary school, every day of learning is of value. I don't think that parents should take their kids out of school in term time. Nor, incidentally, using the same criteria, do I think that teachers should go on strike in term time, thereby taking away these valuable days from our kids.

And this initiative is not just about young NQTs (Newly Qualified Teachers) but about recognising and rewarding the efforts of all teachers who do well. Whose performance is good. Measured in terms of the outcomes achieved by the kids under their supervision. Is there really any other measure that is anywhere near as meaningful? And nor is it about having the brightest kids - so you'll obviously do well - quite the opposite in fact. It's about getting the best out of kids of all abilities - it can be achieved (perhaps even more easily, certainly more noticeably) when the achievement is by kids of lesser ability. It stands out more you see.

I'm struggling to find what's not to like about this initiative if you're a bright, motivated teacher who's keen to get the best out of your charges. And if you agree, you're part of a group that is trying to get the best out of the system; trying to attract the best people to be teachers, trying to deliver the best outcomes in terms of attainment and achievement for our kids. If not you are, almost by definition, letting the kids and the best teachers down.

If you just turn up, take the money and the holidays and run; then you might not welcome what Mr Gove is trying to achieve. If you believe that it is not effort or results, but 'time served' that should dictate whether you get promoted or not, then you are almost certainly going to be in the opposing camp, along with your teaching unions. And along with the system as a whole which, today's report suggests very clearly, is failing our young people.

Obviously incentivising effort and achievement will involve some 'devil in the detail' stuff - at secondary schools in particular teaching is something of a team sport where you don't necessarily control the whole outcome, just the subject you teach, but that is directly measured so it shouldn't be a major problem should it?

In principle at any rate, a method of incentivising, measuring and rewarding outstanding effort (by you) that leads to genuinely better results for one (or all) of your pupils must be a good thing? It's good for you in terms of pay and, thinking about the wider world just for a moment, good for the kid and even better for their future employer and the very economy by which your efforts are paid. Everyone's a winner given the good work that you deliver. Oh happy day.

Yes? Thank you. Truly. Thank you very much.

No?

OK, if you're a teacher - or even if you're not - tell me why, in principle, this could possibly be a bad thing? Yes there will be issues of detail; of measurement. It is a complex situation, but in principle is the concept of identifying, encouraging and rewarding effort and achievement by teachers a bad thing? If it leads, as it surely must, to better outcomes for kids?

Don't give me 'unworkable' or 'complexity' or 'you should leave it to the experts' bullshit. Just tell me why an initiative designed to improve standards and to reward good teachers is a bad thing in principle.

If you have a brain - and presumably you have in order to become someone in the lofty and seriously important position of being able to teach others - I simply do not see how you can reject this issue in principle. I'm not saying this is simple or easy to deliver in practise, but I am saying, firmly, that it is the right direction for us to be trying to go in.

But the NUT (was there ever a better or more apt name for a union?) and the NASUWT are trying to block this initiative at every turn. And they represent you.

Another great day? A strike which should be but doesn't seem to be the last possible resort and which deprives teachers of a day's pay and, more importantly, our kids of a valuable day of learning, can be described by the NUT as 'a great day'? Wouldn't a 'great day' be when our kids' achievements are on the up? When we're rising up the international league for attainment, instead of falling down the tables?

So, the strike is about pensions and benefits. And I have some serious sympathy with that as an issue, but we're living in tough times, largely because of the antics of the last Labour government which the NUT supported. Why should teachers be singled out to ride the storm when everyone else has to feel some pain? But this is not really just about pay and pensions, it's about 'the blob' (read more here) and about trying to discredit Gove at every turn, with any and all excuses to do so taken up by the NUT and the NASUWT. To the point where the unions will do anything to stop his reforms and improvements. So pensions is one thing, but stopping progress is quite another. And if the system was delivering well educated kids, with high achievements on an international scale, I think most people would welcome it and recognise your achievements and back your cause. But that is not currently the case is it?

Since 2000, our kids have fallen, in the world league, from 8th to 27th in maths, 7th to 25th in reading and 4th to 16th in science according to the OECD's Pisa international assessment criteria. So much for Mr Blair's endlessly improving GCSE and A-level results or his 'education, education, education mantra. It was just spin, as usual from him. Shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt is blaming Mr Gove, but, three year's in? After 13 years of Labour and when (as you well know) Mr Gove's reforms have not fully kicked in yet, let alone been responsible for a cycle of educational attainment. And they are still being resisted, tooth and nail, by members of your profession (if you are a teacher, obviously).

Instead of putting all your considerable efforts and brainpower into blocking Mr Gove's improved performance-based initiative, how about putting those same efforts into trying to make it work? To get around the many and varied obstacles and to deliver a better level of education for all our kids and for the benefit of them, their families and the future of our country?

Even if it is difficult to achieve - and I'm sure that it is - why are your efforts designed to make it more difficult rather than trying to achieve a solution that you cannot fault in principle?

If that is the case- and I don't really see what other conclusions one can draw - I can only deduce that those efforts are not about improving the level of our kids' skills and achievement, but about making life easier for crap teachers. And there are crap teachers. You and I both know this to be true, if we're honest, and I'm sure you are. Protecting under-achievement. Maintaining a situation which is seeing ever declining standards and which is failing our kids and our country.

Only 18 teachers have been sacked for incompetency in the last four decades, out of an annual pool of 500,000 teachers. The crap teachers are 'compromised' (compromise agreement) out of their current jobs instead of being sacked (so with no stain on their records) and they just go on to another school and practise their incompetency with another set of unfortunate kids for whom every day is not valuable but, largely a waste of time. Surely you're not resisting this improvement initiative to protect crap teachers?

Well guess what? I think that's exactly what (many of) you (and in particular the teaching unions) are doing. It's exactly what the NUT and the NASUWT are doing, daily. And you, in whose hands the future skills and thereby prosperity of our young people and via them, our country resides, are doing this to defend your own inadequacies or those of your colleagues. If you are a bright, motivated teacher with the interests of your charges at heart, you should not be standing by while this is happening, much less supporting the unions' constant strike action - taking away oh-so-valuable days of teaching and learning from our kids. It's time for you to stand up to this nonsense.

It's not as if we're leading the world in educational standards is it? If we were, you would get much more - probably universal - support for better pay and conditions.

What is currently happening in your name is simply not good enough.

Poor teachers are supported. They have competency support in which they're consulted and 'retrained' in line with what is expected. They are supported and re-measured (you know this of course) and then re-evaluated. And then, if all's well, we move on. But if it's not, if after all that support the person is found to be just not god enough to be a teacher, what happens? They get a compromise agreement, often a pay off, and they are then released with no stain on their record to go and ply their incompetence at another school. How can that be right?

Final point (if I may): this current 'qualified teacher status' stuff is a smokescreen isn't it? It's about pulling up the ladder. Having a PGCE does not mean you're a good teacher, it just means you've completed the course. Likewise someone who might be an expert in their subject but who doesn't have a PGCE might also not be a good teacher. But in both cases they might be a great teacher. And it's really down to the head who employs them to decide and then to monitor the situation.

Tell me I'm wrong, but bring proof not bullshit. Reasons why what you and the unions are doing will be good for our kids rather than protecting and perpetuating what looks increasingly like failure to me. This is not about a 'fun' day out on a strike, preparing placards and banners and having a laugh. This is deadly serious. It's about the skills that our future citizens and leaders will have. It's about the future prosperity of our country. And what it looks increasingly like to me, is that too many of our teachers and teaching unions simply don't give a shit about it.

Thanks for reading.

Is HS2 the flagship for our incompetent, unambitious nation?

 It will bring economic riches the like of which you have only dreamed about.

Oh no, actually it won't, sorry.

It will solve the massive problem of (lack of) capacity on our railways between London and the poor impoverished north.

Oh no, sorry again, it won't.

It will eliminate closures and upgrade works - for 14 years - on the West Coast main line.

Erm, sorry. That's not true either.

It's about world-class infrastructure, making Britain a world leader in transport.

What? You mean catching up with the French or Japanese railways of the 1980s by 2030?

Ah you spotted that did you? A tad awkward really. Still onwards and upwards. Or sideways. Whatever. (we need to do it because the EU says we must - but schtum ok? We don't want everyone to know that).

It's the biggest infrastructure project in Europe. You should be proud. It'll come in within budget and on time.

 Yeah right. It's gone up from £30 billion to £80 billion before a single sod has been turned. And this particular sod is not for turning (to coin a phrase). We'll have spent more than £3 billion on the project before we even lay a single yard of track?


Yes but it's important to plan.

And does your cost analysis include every landowner calling in a judicial review along the proposed line of the route?

Erm not as such.



And are you willing to lose an election because of this white elephant?

Now you're being ridiculous.





HS2 if you hadn't guessed. It's a big deal. A flagship project for the UK and one upon which many careers will be made or broken. The stakes are high.

It's a multi £billion pissing contest. And like most political pissing contests it will not make any real difference to you. Unless you live on the route of the proposed line of course. And if you do, the chances are that it will by-pass your tranquil duck pond (whether you have a duck house in it or not), and bring you no benefit whatsoever. In fact it will mean changes to the existing network that will make many places worse off in terms of connectivity into London - just moving the benefits of connectivity rather than enhancing the overall service for everyone.

Anyway there have been lots of 'facts' and some absolute bullshit put out by our EU-led  'establishment' in favour of HS2 - you can google what's out there as easily as I can so I'm not going to regurgitate the figures here. What you'll discover really depends upon whether your source has been paid to come up with positive or negative data. As with seemingly everything in our modern world, from climate change to advice on what to eat, it's about following the money. The BBC has more on the pros and cons here.

It feels to me like this is an EU-mandated project that our government feels compelled to undertake regardless of value for money or proven need. It's often described as a 'legacy' project for Dave, but I'm not sure that can be correct given the time-scales involved - he'll be long-gone by the time the first train rolls out of the station.

I like the idea (if this project is to go ahead) of reversing the schedule so that the northern sections are completed first and then joined up to London later. That might contribute to better connectivity and an uplift in economic performance for the north of the country.

However, one needs to remember (although this is not specifically stated anywhere in the literature) that this is really about feeding London's economic engine, rather than delivering enhanced prosperity to the north. And if London, one of the great world cities, is looking to harvest talent from further afield; from Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and beyond, what is the future chance of those great cities being able to stand on their own two feet as separate, distinct economic powers themselves?

 In 1985, as a mere slip of a lad, (obviously) I found myself in Fontainebleau and needing to get to Venice on the same day.  Romance wasn't quite dead in 'them' days. So I caught this newfangled thing called the TGV (Train Grande Vitesse). It was amazingly smart and sophisticated, all seats facing forward. Comfortable, clean, and very very fast. I expected to arrive in Italy during the Renaissance.

It did well over 200 mph, in comfort and quiet, the scenery was like a speeded-up stop motion film. It was fantastic.

In 1969 we built Concord; the world's first supersonic passenger plane. It could get you to New York in 4 hours instead of eight. It was the envy of the world and quite right too.

In that same year we (humans) put a man on the moon. Obviously if it had been Sandra Bullock instead of Neil Armstrong we'd probably have missed it but nonetheless we did.

In 1969.

So, 45 years' later our ambition is to put a man into Birmingham, from London, 20 minutes more quickly than he could make the same journey on a normal train since about 1971. But we can't do that just yet: It'll be another 15 years or so before that remarkable feat can be achieved. At a cost of £80 billion and counting.

India can send a vehicle to Mars, today, for £45 million. But there might be life on Mars.

The thing is, if we were planning a rail line that would make the journey from Birmingham to London take about 15 minutes. Leeds and Manchester about 30 minutes and Glasgow to London less than an hour, I'd be in favour of it. If our latest mega project meant that we would lead the world in transport technology - let's face it we're paying enough for that to be a realistic expectation - then most if not all of the counter-arguments would fall away. Particularly if the new system complimented the existing one, which works pretty well albeit in a slightly creaking way, rather than (technical term) fucking it up which seems to me to be the inevitable outcome of the current proposals.

I think HS2 in its current form, is a second rate, hugely expensive white elephant whose benefits will not match the hype and whose disruption and blight will not be offset for those who will suffer, because they won't be able to use the thing. 

 In the US there are (admittedly provisional and early stage) plans for HyperLoop - a technically advanced, futuristic new concept that could see travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco taking just 30 minutes - a distance that is very similar to that between London and Glasgow (400 miles). And the estimated cost of that project is $6billion. I realise that this is not proven technology, but we're spending half that amount just on planning for HS2.

 More on HyperLoop here.

Surely, if we want to 'future proof' our vital transport network, we should be looking at something like this that considers future technology and a massively better outcome than catching up with 50 year old existing technology? What happened to our ambition? Our 'aspiration'? Or are we accepting that we cannot do innovation and engineering excellence any more in the UK? 

What we're suggesting here, what we're claiming as a flagship project, is catching up with what the French were doing in the 1980s, by 2030. We're effectively paying enough for this to be a mega, game-changing, standard-setting, envelope-pushing, world-beating project that could put UK technology and engineering prowess back on the global map. And what we're getting is a TGV, 50 years too late.

How did our level of ambition, in this 'aspiration nation' fall so low?

Thanks for reading. And Slough.

If only I could control my tail

You left me in the cold kitchen with no food. Closed the door so I couldn't sit on the back of the settee and keep guard over your (my) territory. I haven't been on a proper walk for days. You tell me off when I can't hold it in but it's just natural and I can't help it.

I hate the postman. We fight and I always win. He pushes stuff through the door and I kill it, make sure it's safe for you. He always admits defeat and goes away.

It's lonely sometimes when you go into the garden and leave me inside. What do you both do in the garden for eight or nine hours at a time?

I sometimes think that you get in that big thing with wheels and go somewhere without me. I have been in it a few times and it was fun. I put my nose out of the window and it ruffled my fur. But then you carried me around in a bag, like an onion. I didn't like that much. But people were nice and friendly. Maybe they thought I was disabled or something? I'm not am I?

Can we go for a walk today? I know it's a bit cold and muddy but you have wellies and coats and I don't. And I know I have to go in the sink for a bath afterwards - I like that if I'm honest - but can we? I'd really really like it.

It's OK if you don't want to. Maybe I can bring you my ball and you can throw it for me? Just a couple of times. I'll bring it back for you. But if you're watching that box thing in the corner that's OK. I don't mind. Maybe I can curl up next to you on the sofa and keep you warm? I like that. You sometimes stroke me and that's really nice.

The thing is, you leave me alone for hours, you kick me out of your rooms when I'm not wanted, leave me to fend for myself when it doesn't suit you for me to be involved. You either like me to befriend visitors and do my thing, or lock me away out of sight.

I should by rights be confused. Feeling unloved and neglected.

Next time you come home I'm not going to come running and show my unending unequivical love for you. I'm going to be indifferent.

If only I could control my bloody tail.

;)

    Jeeves Doonican

Not joining the Euro was a good thing. Anyone disagree?

Not even the most vehement europhile would even contemplate suggesting that the UK joining the single currency would have been a good thing for this country.

If we had done, we'd probably be Greece by now, only with a higher debt to GDP ratio we'd be even worse off.

And as the EU machine continues inexorably towards a federal Europe with a single everything, from defense to welfare rules, open borders to trade deals with the rest of the world (as Europe rather than individual member states), even Dave is committed to our staying in. Why? Eventually it will mean, as night follows day, that we'll have to adopt the single currency. There's no other credible outcome.

You cannot have a single tax state, a single economy or a single government without a single common currency. It has never been done anywhere else in the world and it won't be done in Europe. So in many ways a vote to stay in, based mainly on ignorance and apathy, is effectively a vote to give up our national identity, our sovereignity, our status as a free country, able to govern itself.

And the people who do currently fulfill that function seem to be committed to handing it all over to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg. What manner of total fuckwittery is at play here?

The question on the referendum paper (if we ever get to that, which I think is highly doubtful) should be: 'do you want the UK to remain a sovereign state or to be governed by the EU as part of the European Union?'

Because that, ultimately, is what is at stake.

But that may well be a moot point because the chances are, strongly, that Labour will be returned to government (God help us) in 2015 and in that eventuality, the referendum will be bunged unceremoniously into the dustbin of history. And we won't then have a choice. This negation of our ability to control our own destiny will have been imposed upon us. Probably permanently.

Our only hope, it seems to me, is for Dave to get his act together, to try (perhaps) to repatriate some vital powers to the UK from the EU (which will almost certainly fail because France can simply veto anything we want) and then to have a change of heart in line with what is actually right for this country. There are lots of 'ifs' there but it could, potentially be a way for Dave to save his skin and secure a victory in the next election. It doesn't seem that anything else is likely to deliver that result - despite the ongoing evidence of past Labour failures which don't seem to be denting their electoral popularity.

Dave needs to do the above and embrace UKIP and therein the 'firm' right, if he is to have any chance of turning things around in my opinion. That is very unlikely at this moment in time, but next year's Euro elections could just be a strong catalyst for this change of stance. That is why they are so important and why I will, again be advocating a vote for UKIP; just as this year's local election results caused him to rethink his position, a strong showing for UKIP, based on an anti-EU stance could, if it is strong and clear enough, make Dave see the reality of his situation.

The sad thing, these days, is that politicians put their own livelihoods and well-being way ahead of their party and the voters they supposedly represent, let alone what's right for the country. But if it becomes a choice between saving their own skins or being voted out, they will inevitably come around to thinking properly about the will of the people and what is right for the country.

I think this is a slim chance if I'm honest, but if we sleepwalk - as we currently are doing - into control by Europe and the EU, we will have lost our identity and I would argue our ability to control our home-grown prosperity forever. We'll be a left-wing minor state with the same influence as Moldova, rather than a driving force for good in the world.

Please wake up people. This is real and present and massively dangerous.

Thanks for reading.

A strong, coherent, consistent vision is your only chance Dave

We can argue all day and night (for five years or so) about the failings of the last Labour government. Many people on the right shudder at the prospect of a new 'old' Labour getting in at the next election after the mess in which they left the country last time and now with added union power pulling the strings: More here.

The financial disaster they oversaw; black holes in defense spending, failed IT projects, cover-ups of NHS neglect that led to thousands of unnecessary deaths, falling educational standards, completely uncontrolled immigration.

The growth of the welfare-dependent client state, selling off our gold reserves for a song, raiding the pension funds; the proliferation of mind-bogglingly stupid PFI contracts which mean paying for infrastructure and capital projects will cost ten times what they should have done and which were entered into, on the 'never never' when the economy was booming. Taking us into an unwinnable war on completely bogus evidence...

Dave has been trying to address many of these major problems and he has made some vital progress in many areas particularly in education and the welfare state where the problems are massive; were considered 'too difficult' by Labour last time, but need to be solved if we're to have any prospect of a prosperous future. The economy is turning a corner, jobs are being created and there continues to be fall-out from Labour incompetence on bank regulation, electoral scandals in Falkirk, NHS failings, the Co-op bank and, pretty much universal acceptance that Ed Balls' economic competence is non-existant.

Dave should be miles ahead in the polls, looking forward to ditching the woeful Lib Dems and taking the country forward on a sound footing for the first time since Maggie was at the helm. The polls suggest that a majority don't see Ed Miliband as a competent Prime Minister, don't trust Balls to run a whelk stall.. and yet.

The polls also suggest strongly that Labour will almost certainly win a majority at the next election. How is that even possible?

If you're of the opinion that there's no such thing as bad publicity, ask Gerald Ratner about it sometime. 

I have opined, here, that the current poll ratings of the parties in the UK are quite mad given all of the above: Labour incompetence leaving a massive mess and Dave starting to clear it up.

But, it seems to me, it's not just about achievements and making progress any more. Doing the right thing for the country. It's about tribalism, about what you as an individual are likely to get out of whichever party, rather than anyone taking a wider view of the good of the country. I think that's an unutterebly sad state of affairs but when our politicians of all shades of the political spectrum seem to be in it for their own gain; have a 'fuck you' attitude, it's hardly surprising that most of the population take the same self-interested view of the world.

Most importantly - and here's the 'thing' - it's about vision, reputation or (to use a marketing term) 'brand identity'.

In today's 24-hour media society it's no longer about achievement or reality, but about spin and about perception. And sadly for Dave, he has not sufficiently addressed the perception that the Tories are 'the Nasty Party'.   

So it doesn't really matter what great things he does if they don't add up to shaking off that epithet. Clearly Labour will continue to push the phrase for as long as they can (forever presumably while it still gains some traction) and until Dave or future Tory party leaders get to the point where they've debunked the concept, proved it to be invalid, it will continue to haunt them, probably fatally.

The way to achieve this is no longer just about improving people's lives and winning the argument through deeds. When the perception is so deep-seated (and latched onto at every opportunity by Labour supporters) it needs a much more concentrated effort in order to turn the situation around.

In short, it needs a clear, coherent vision: one which underlines every aspect of this government's achievements, one which effectively blows the old 'nasty party' tag off the agenda for good.

So fannying (technical term) around with half-baked slogans like 'in it together', 'the big society', 'aspiration nation', 'localism', 'hard working people', but not sticking to any one of them; making it the 'vision', the 'big idea', doesn't just fail to do the job, it actually adds to the confusion and makes you look like you don't have any real conviction. More here. And a more detailed look at the value of vision here.

I'm not suggesting that spinning rather than doing is the right approach - Labour did that with disastrous consequences for the country.

The terrifying trouble is, that their approach seems to be working better than Dave's.

Thanks for reading

Have the lunatics finally taken over the asylum?

It amazes me that despite the progress made by Dave and his team, made invariably in spite of Mr Clegg's unprincipled fuckwittery and blocking, he's still well behind in the polls and that the most likely outcome of the 2015 General Election is a Labour majority. Ben Brogan's piece today is good on this here.

It just defies all logic, to me, that people would vote to bring Labour back; a more left wing Labour party than we have seen since 1978, with the unions pulling Ed's strings.

What is wrong with the people of this country that they'd choose vote for a party that left us in such a shambolic mess in 2010 instead of the people who are clearing up the mess for the good of the country now?

What don't they get about the drive to improve educational attainment? To fix the £multi billion black hole in defense spending and to address the out-of-control welfare client state that is simply unsustainable?

What don't they understand about our failing NHS and the need for transparency and improvement that was simply covered up by the last Labour government? 

Yes the economy (stupid) is picking up but that is perhaps more about where we are in the economic cycle than can be directly attributed to government policies, but even that seems to have no resonance with the voting public.

It's almost as if people will vote on tribal lines even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that the people they're voting for are idiots. And that makes them, erm, idiots too.

It begs the question as to what level of incompetence and shambolic failure would induce people to change the way they vote? My terror is that we are going to be finding out come 2015 and beyond.

And that will mean no EU referendum - probably our last chance to secure our own sovereignity, our last chance to have democratic control of our lives via direct control (such as it is) of the people who make the laws by which we live.

It will almost certainly be too late, if we don't have a referendum in 2017, for us to be able to claw back our democratic powers of self governance. The freedoms that were so hard won on two occasions in the last century. We won't be British or English, we'll be Europeans, governed by an undemocratic left-leaning super-state whose MPs will never have heard of the village, town or even county in which you live. How is that going to be good for you on a local basis?

We are sleepwalking into democratic oblivion and we're being led down this path by idiots who will vote Labour despite the abject fucking mess they have made every time they have had their hands on the levers of power in this country.

I'm an optimist by nature and I'm looking for some good news. I'm struggling. I want to scream 'WAKE THE FUCK UP' but sadly I'm not sure you could tell the difference as far as many (perhaps most) of my fellow citizens are concerned as to whether they are awake or not.

Government is being done 'to' us instead of 'for' us at the moment. And Dave is not without guilt in that assessment, but if apathy, tribalism and utter blindness to reality continues to win the day, we are, quite simply, fucked. As a proud nation and as a self governing, enterprising and 'free' people.

So the lunatics haven't taken over the asylum; they've just been watching x-factor and Big Brother (oh the irony), whilst we are all being sold down the river.

My views on Dave's opportunity here.

And lack of vision here.

And opportunity, here.

Sadly he seems to be blowing it.


Thanks for reading.

Chris Huhne thinks you're stupid

Gone fisking. I don't often (if ever) do this but a piece by that nice upstanding and honest Mr Huhne in today's Grauniad made me a bit mad, as you might be able to deduce. There might be a few naughty words dotted about. My comments in bold.

Here's the piece:  

Europe is once again turning into a disaster for the Conservatives. The prime minister is up for renegotiation and an in-out referendum: indeed it is his idea. Implicitly, if renegotiation fails, we should leave. But as David Cameron begins to realise the price of this promise in investment and jobs, he is desperately trying to reassure business that he can win a plebiscite backing EU membership.

Yes we know Dave will be for a 'stay in' vote in the referendum - he's a product of the same Common Purpose crap that guides your every waking move Mr Huhne, but at least Dave is offering us the chance to campaign and to have a vote - it's called democracy Mr Huhne, not something that you or your colleagues seem to have much of a clue about. This is the biggest issue regarding our freedom of determination, that has faced this country since the late 1940s and you would deny the people a vote? You like denying stuff don't you?

The big guns are pounding. Last week a CBI report estimated that every British household was £3,000 better off from membership, and urged that we stay. It rejected a Norwegian or Swiss half-pregnant option where you apply the rules but get no say over making them. Four-fifths of businesses backs EU membership, according to polls.

Plucking a figure out of the air (which is what the CBI did largely, more here) and then saying 'according to polls' without identifying the source is just a misleading cop out. Here's Dan Hannan in the Telegrah on the exact same issue. You'll have to do much better than that Mr Huhne in order to be credible. Actually, much, much more. If the argument is that we need to stay where we are so that we have a role in making the rules set by Brussels, how's that going in reality? The more entries (new members) from smaller countries, the less influence we have. If we were outside but part of EFTA we would have significant influence as do the Norweigians, (more here) and, what's more, if we didn't agree with or accept new rules we could just ignore them. What are they going to do in that eventuality, kick us out?..oh wait.. 

On Friday Nissan's most senior global executive said his company would reconsider its UK investment if we left. The company employs 6,500 people in the north-east. These warnings could cost the Tories votes in manufacturing areas where there are marginal seats.

Posturing. Would he really go if we offered an efficient tax environment and there was abosolutely no change to the UK's ability to trade with the Eurozone - indeed if we were better able to trade on a global basis, on our own behalf, with the Commonwealth and our special friend, the US, as 'us' rather than as part of an EU agreement? How is the jobs argument going down in Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Ireland Mr Huhne? Where they're yoked into enabling Germany to boom, while they endure the prospect of almost endless poverty and lack of opportunity as a direct result of what the EU is doing?

And why is an ex Lib Dem, a failed minor party politician worried about Tory marginal seats? (expletive deleted)

The Conservatives, once the business party, are in the fevered grip of activists who have no conception of what matters to the economy or indeed the electorate. Ambitious Tory MPs know how to stroke their party's erogenous zones, which is why the MP Adam Afriyie is playing games in calling for a referendum next year, before the election.

'Once'? If the Tories are not still the business party, then we don't currently have one in the UK. And since business is the source of all the money we have to spend on everything, that might get a bit awkward. What a fucking stupid thing to say. Here's what Digby Jones thinks - would you (dear reader) trust him or Mr Huhne to have the UK's interests at heart on this issue?

On Saturday the Bruges Group, whose principal purpose is to keep a candle flickering at the altar of St Maggie, held a conference in London entitled "Which way out? How Britain can withdraw from the EU". The Tory right is busy plotting the how, not the why.

Because the why - unaccountability, the ability to set our trade, foreign and domestic policies without our (electorate) input, to make laws that bind people who did not vote for them, spend billions in tax payer's money with no accountability and no approved audit for 18 years, is already well established. Try finding a reason - a real benefit - that would justify our staying. I have tried and couldn't. The nearest I could get was the strength that we would have being part of a larger trading block. But if we were members of the EEA (as part of the European Free trade Association EFTA) we would still be part of that larger block, but outside the cloying, controlling, left-wing EU mechanism and, therefore, better able to trade with many other parts of the world. This is what former Eurofile Max Hastings thinks. 

This is lunacy. The EU is simply incapable of being the bogeyman the Tory right and the UK Independence party try to put up. Its institutions are small: they employ 47,500 people, 11% of the size of the UK civil service. EU spending is 1% of EU output, or less than a 40th of total public spending. EU law is usually mind-bogglingly technical, and largely about establishing common standards. Without that effort, differing consumer protection can block trade. Unlike any other institution designed to tackle cross-national problems, the EU even has elected officials.

'Even' has elected officials. As if that's some justification. A few elected officials and most, in power are not elected by the majority of people whose money they spend. So it's a relatively small waste of our time and money so we should ignore it and let it get on with controlling our lives in the future? What kind of argument is that?  Most of their officials view their cushy lifestyles as being much more important than doing the right thing by their countries of origin. It's an out of control unaccountable and largely unelected power base that has too much power over us and must be wound back to serve us rather than control us.

Nor does the electorate give a toss. Our EU membership does not even rank in the top 10 issues concerning voters. In an Ipsos Mori poll in September, just 1% said it was the most important issue facing Britain, compared with 25% specifically citing the economy. Even Ukip-Tory switchers worry more about immigration and the economy than about EU membership. Yet Tory activists are obsessed with the issue.

By design, the EU has fanned the flames of joke issues like straight bananas over the years to the point where most people now read the letters 'EU' in a story and switch off as its being a joke. It's the boy who cried wolf in reverse - leaving the EU to get on with taking control on a slice by slice basis. Just because people have been thus put off by the EU's tactics does not mean that it's not the biggest threat facing our freedom and democracy at this time and as a (former) UK politician, if you cannot see, understand and communicate that fact, then you are unworthy of the post. Which is self evident from your past behaviour. 

How can we explain this? The Tories are a mix of two strands. The first is the whiggish, market-oriented and socially liberal strand. The second is the old Tory English nationalist tradition: militaristic, authoritarian and xenophobic.

Xenophobic? The Tories/British have been responsible for more growth of trade and uplift in living conditions in more countries around the globe than any other party/country on earth. That doesn't mean we roll over at the first sign of any dissent like you fucking idiots would, but neither does it mean we're xenophobic - that's just another example of opponents playing the race card, the man not the ball, rather than engaging properly and winning the argument. Just lazy journalism. Why am I not surprised?

That English nationalist strand runs all the way through Tory history: the archetypal leader in that tradition was Lord Salisbury. As a result, the Tory party has always needed a foreign bogeyman: the French until the entente cordiale in 1904, the Germans until 1945, and the Soviet Union until the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989.

Oh do fuck off. We're talking about the future freedom of the British people here, as important now as it has ever been in our history. 

When the Soviets could no longer credibly perform the role of foreign threat, who should volunteer but Jacques Delors, then European commission president and a French socialist who proclaimed to the Trades Union Congress in September 1988 that there had to be a "social Europe". As the commission's campaign for its 1992 Maastricht treaty gathered strength, the Tory right had its enemy.
Boris Johnson, then the Daily Telegraph's Brussels correspondent, performed his own walk-on role in the transformation by inventing an entirely new – and largely fictitious – brand of journalism known as the "bent-banana story". The story, in many guises, held that the EU was about to legislate some daft law that would threaten a way of life enjoyed by free-born Englishmen since King Ethelred.
In fact, the EU offers a prize that has been the objective of English foreign policy since the Tudors. We were a small trading nation that wanted to stop any domination that would close our continental markets. We spent blood and treasure fighting the Spanish, French and Germans to achieve that objective. Now the EU gives us what we always craved – and the Tory nationalists look the gift horse in the mouth.

What utter, utter fucking crap. This is not something that we are leading. This was all about trade at first but has now become about a single federal state and one for which we are paying more than everyone except Germany and France to deliver.  Are you really suggesting that the objective of English foreign policy since the Tudors was to be governed by a foreign country? If so, your twattishness knows no bounds.

Pity the redundant Tory nationalist, because we live in a period with fewer external threats to our existence than at any time in our history. But the need for a foreign bogeyman does not depend on reality: it is a psychological urge that tells you more about the person who holds those views than about the world.

Bogeyman? Is this the Daily Star? Once again, playing the man not the ball. Insulting the person who holds genuine views rather than addressing his or her concerns. Unless you address the argument why should anyone take what you say seriously? In fact why should anyone take anything you say ever again, seriously Mr Huhne? And if you really think there are fewer external threats to our way of life now than ever before, have a look at Sweden and Belgium and the Middle East. Good grief.

This psychosis is a massive problem for Tory leaders. Cameron should have faced down these demons in opposition, just as his hero Tony Blair faced down the nationalisers with the abolition of clause IV from Labour's constitution. The tragedy for the Tories – and for Cameron's project – is that he never did.

The tragedy for you and those who support this view, is that Dave had no chance of ever facing down people who take the cause of the UK as being more important than being ruled from overseas. Who value our freedoms and our nationality and our sovereignty. You might advocate handing over our powers - powers, on this of all days, that have been so hard won, but there are still many people - not xenophobes, not racists, not 'little Englanders' but proud Britains who want to trade with the world, who love Europe but not the EU, and who want some control and some influence over the people for whom we vote and to whom we provide the money that they spend in our name. 

Worse, he threw red meat to rightwingers with a promise in his leadership campaign to withdraw from the European People's party, the pro-EU grouping that contains the sane continental conservative parties.

'Sane'. Again, insult anyone who takes a different view instead of engaging in a rational argument. This guy is truly a fuckwit of epic proportions. Where's the proof for what you say? Where's the source? You're just printing (writing) your own prejudices here. How objective or fact-checked is that Mr Rusbridger?

Cameron now lacks the courage to refuse more of the concessions that he began. Like so many leaders before him, he is a sad hostage to the way he won.

The sadness is mainly that he could only win by being forced to form a coalition with people who are simply not equipped for high office and who do not have the interests of their nation or their electorate at heart. A conclusion that you have confirmed, in spades, via this unbelievably naive article.

For what it's worth, if you want some more on my views on this subject you can find it:

Here (Referendum)
Here (playing the man and not the ball)
Here (Agenda 21, EU control of our lives etc)
Here (will leaving the EU cost British jobs?)
Here (getting back some control over our politicians)
and
Here (the end of democracy in Europe?)

Thanks for reading. 

We may have invented them, but why don't we understand - and use properly - our railways?

With all this current furore about HS2 and rail capacity, economic benefits etc., I've been thinking. India can get a 'vehicle' to Mars for £45 million (of our aid money, just kidding) whereas it'll take us 200 times that to get a man to Birmingham 20 minutes more quickly than he can do the journey now, by 2030. I know that's spurious but it is kinda funny in the great scheme of things.

I am working on an HS2 blog specifically and will bother you with it shortly, but this is potentially a bigger issue in my opinion. Not as glamorous perhaps.

If I were to tell you of a scheme (I hate the word 'scheme' it has such negative Dickensian connotations but you know what I mean), that would transport goods much more efficiently around the country and would largely solve the problem of congestion and maintenance on our roads (for a while anyway since greater capacity leads to more journeys inexorably), and which wouldn't cost us (the government) a bean, would you be interested? Read on Macduff.

Have you ever seen a traffic jam on the railways? Apart from maybe queuing to get into a London station occasionally? Do you ever think: 'Christ, if I happened to find myself on one side of the track (quite possibly illegally but that's not my point), it'd take me hours to get to the other side because there's so many trains coming and going' ?

The reason I ask is that one of the main reasons being put forward by the government as to why HS2 is needed is capacity. Our rail lines are, it seems, clogged with trains - or if not with trains, then with commuters traveling at the same time every day, there and back, in order to earn a crust.

But if you travel at 09.30 or before or after the period between 4pm and 7pm, on a normal weekday, capacity is not an issue at all. And according to The Engineer magazine (which you may not have come across before but, trust me, is a credible and highly reliable bible for the engineering industry), there is no current capacity issue on the lines between London and Birmingham and beyond. More here. Whereas there are clearly capacity issues (mainly to do with the age of the rolling stock and there being no time to implement a proper solution), on Network South East. A blog, perhaps, for another day. But I'm talking about using our exisitng rail capacity here, not just for people.

Between 11pm and 6am there's almost nothing moving on the rails. Imagine that, the capacity to move millions of people in a short period of time every day, not being used for around one third of that day. Now of course the issue here is that people don't need to travel during those hours and that the rail operators have to gear up to meet peak demand. That's me blown out of the water then. But think on this:

Freight doesn't have to move during peak times. Perishable goods perhaps, but getting Spanish tomatoes from Dover to say Birmingham takes maybe eight hours in a truck, on the roads, at all hours of the day and night. Is it really beyond the wit of man to get them there in maybe four hours on a train, during the night when the rails are massively under-used? And for non-perishable goods the time-frame is much more forgiving.

But, given my utopian scenario, once a proper, intelligent system for transporting freight by rail, and at off peak hours of the day was in place, the delivery times would actually be much more reliable than for goods transported by road. And transporting frieght by night, on the railway which has massive capacity to do this, would get huge numbers of trucks off the roads during the day, thereby helping to solve the mega problem of traffic congestion at the same time.

One truck axle movement is the equivalent of 38,000 cars. By which I mean that one set of truck wheels does the equivalent damage to the road surface of 38,000 cars passing over the same bit of road. And most trucks have six axles. So getting one truck off the road is the equivalent, in highway maintenance terms of getting almost 240,000 cars off the roads in terms of damage.

And making this change would not require any major infrastructure investment: The rails are already there - you might need some additional rolling stock and a better computer system to control their movements on existing lines, but it's not like building a whole new railway system. And it would go a long way towards solving traffic congestion on our roads.

And all it would take (OK this is a bit simplistic and the devil is always in the detail I know), would be for the government to say 'we'll charge you an extra amount of money (punitive) to transport goods during the day (especially in peak traffic hours) and less - or nothing - if you transport the same goods at night (by road). And, (and here's the best bit) we'll give you a bonus if you get together with the rail freight companies and move your goods by rail at off-peak hours'. 

The infrastructure and capacity is already in place for this to be made to work, quite simply and effectively. Yes the rail option would require freight handling facilities around the country but they're already there - they're called 'B8' in planning terms - warehousing and distribution points. And yes there would obviously be the need to transport the goods between these distribution points and the point of sale, but that already happens anyway.

There wouldn't be more traffic locally than there is now and if implemented, most of these journeys would be made at night or at off peak times, in order to 'join up' with the schedule.

And this approach would get what? 50%, 60%, 80% of heavy goods vehicles off of our trunk roads almost overnight. And make much better use of our rail capacity.

It would also reduce the damage caused to our roads by more than half, overnight and, almost certainly, reduce the number of deaths on our roads significantly if there were fewer trucks on them. 

The world of transporting goods  designed for TEUs (twenty foot equivalent units or 'containers' to you and me). They're used to transport good around the world on container ships and then onward distribution 'in country' mostly by road. But they can also be transported by rail in a way which is much more efficient and would also be much more reliable in terms of the planned time of arrival (subject to getting the rail handling system right). But it's 2013, can we not develop a schedule which makes use of the massive unused capacity on our railways in order to deliver a better transport system and take a significant proportion of trucks off the roads, especially during peak times?

All it would take is a government directive and then the business opportunity such a system would afford to operators would almost certainly mean that the investment required in systems and freight terminals located to make use of the rail network instead of the road network, would come from the private sector. How many ProLogis warehouses does the government or the taxpayer pay for currently? None at all.

Even if there was some 'pump priming' needed from government, it would certainly not add up to even a small fraction of the £80 billion earmarked for HS2 and it would bring serious, measurable benefit to the whole country.

Joined-up thinking on transport? Now that would truly be a first.

Thanks for reading.