A super-belated Happy New Year.
I have left behind the urgent need to finish my entry on Fracking for the moment to point out a quick fact: it's a UK Election Year!
On May the 7th, the Coalition Government of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formally ends and voting takes place across the country in order to determine what will replace it.
It's highly unlikely to be a repeat scenario... and for the first time in a good while, the result is really hard to predict.
This is arguably mainly down to the presence of UKIP, and their success in the May 2014 European Elections has without doubt scared the established mainstream parties. Also, despite the failure of the SNP to secure independence after the Scottish Referendum on 18th September, 2014, the party has found itself in a strong, indeed arguably stronger, position ever since, and it is possible they may hold the balance of power come the morning of May the 8th.
Whilst, as I said, it's hard to predict the outcome, and despite the occasional spats taking place in the various televised Leaders' Debates currently taking place, it is relatively easy to consider who may work with who (and who may not) in the case of there being no overall victor after it.
Labour have made it clear they are targeting an overall majority and do not wish to work with the SNP, but UKIP have said they would consider a partnership with the Conservatives... and Nick Clegg (as LibDem Leader) still has faith that his party will prove the Kingmaker, regardless of who that main (but not overall) victor is.
As a Greens' supporter for 2015, I have been happy with what I have heard from Natalie Bennett et al. Whilst a lot has been said of her "interviewing skills", she has performed well enough in the debates, and we must remember that, either way, we don't vote for people, we vote for parties. This is not The Voice, after all.
I suppose what really annoys me right now is that a lot of detractors (who, at best, 'skip read' the various Party Manifestos), are attacking the Greens for being potentially economically disastrous...
Now, no matter what you might think about that, or indeed whether you think it was US sub-prime mortgages, Gordon Brown selling gold or just plain bad luck that caused the economic crash of 2008 in the first place, you must admit that it is rather sloppy to worry about the Greens creating an economic mess when we are already in one.
I say: give them a chance! If they fail then we can at least all say that they had a go. It gets me down when people say "it's time for something different"... and then don't see it through.
Of course, saying that, I'd rather people voted Labour than UKIP... but then, I'm not bonkers.
So: 1. Remember to vote! It CAN make a difference no matter what Russell Brand might say as there is always a wide-range of options on a ballot paper. The last day to register to vote IS MIDNIGHT TONIGHT!
And: 2. Read the manifestos rather than just relying on TV performances to help make up your mind.
Cheers,
ZeeOx
Monday, 20 April 2015
Tuesday, 23 September 2014
Giving a Frack...
(WORK IN PROGRESS - PLEASE IGNORE FOR NOW!)
I seem to have a rather predictable writing style... which is that I set-up my line on something and then attempt to justify or prove it...
But I then tend to fizzle out and give up before my argument gets convincing.
I suppose I should state facts, conclude and leave any decisions up to the reader... but then, what's the point of a Blog if it is not personalised?
I am not writing academic essays here (although, no doubt, I'd make the same failing with those as well!).
Anyway, so on to Fracking.
A Mystery...
Fracking is getting some pretty bad press right now so I don't really need to set up much in the way of a rant to underpin my idea that it is a bad thing.
Unsurprisingly, it is probably getting the worst reports in the U.S.A. right now, as (a) that is where it is being developed the most and (b) the States has a firmly established and active Environmental Movement that provides vocal opposition, at least at a local level.
For me, I am worried about the recent tests that have taken place here in the UK, particularly in Sussex and Lancashire, where an evil seed is being tempted to germinate and grow... a seed that may be very hard to kill off in the future once it established itself.
Unlike many large-scale, dirty industrial methods and techniques, Fracking is not as selective in where it is undertaken. Indeed, it is quite unbiased in that it does not care if the area is affluent or poor, flat or hilly, pretty or ugly... sites can potentially pop-up anywhere if conditions beneath the ground are conducive...
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty? Perhaps.
A highly-urbanised spot in the Home Counties? Maybe.
A flood plain in the midst of an important agricultural area? Why not?
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/issues/fracking_background_information_33157
The Government gets to call the shots with these kind of projects and Vetos any NIMBY interests with a heavy-hand.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23730308
http://www.foe.co.uk/get_involved/fracking_petition_41121?ic_number=45953882&m_sourcecode=LM1401131&product=CAMP&utm_source=lyris&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email&MID=2976764&hq_e=el&hq_m=2976764&hq_l=4&hq_v=c7e9779773
Earthquakes?
xx
Desperation? Are there alternatives?
xx
////
I'LL GET BACK TO THIS LATER! SORRY!
Thursday, 18 September 2014
Scottish Independance... why it's a bad thing. (A last minute opinion!)
Just a quick few, badly thought out, comments regarding the Scottish independence referendum, which is taking place today as I write this.
Basically, I'm not for it.
Not, of course, that I have a say in the matter... but a 'No' result WILL have an impact on my life in some form AND, in a sense, will also change my current/future attitude towards the country and influence the possibility of me taking future trips there.
My last three holidays have all been to Scotland. I love the place and also have many Scottish friends... But what's interesting there I suppose is that these passionately Scottish friends aren't allowed to vote in the referendum because they no longer live there!
Anyway, without going too deep, I'll just say that my main reason for thinking the Union is worth keeping is because the 'Yes' cause has got the wrong target in their sights.
The problem with the political infrastructure in this country right now, and its Local, Regional, Devolved and National Governments, is not that 'England' is too dominant...or that the Conservatives don't care for the average child born in The Gorbals... (even if that might be true!)... it is the dominance of the capital of London. And.... the shackles that the Casino gaming-like world of stockbrokers and big banks has us ALL tied to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29238037
True, Scottish 'Yes' campaigners are encouraging their (possibly soon-to-be-ex)partners in the North, or Cornwall, or Wales to follow their suit and try and break free too, but let's be realistic about this: that is silly talk.
Cornwall does not need independence, it just needs help.
And Scotland does too.
These last minute 'MaxDevo' offers do smack of desperation, but the tactic might just actually win it for the 'No' vote as I type this... with more devolved powers than ever before given to Scotland to help them manage their own affairs.
I admit, I quite like devolution in principle. But surely it only comes about because we are useless at keeping a highly centralised, unitary government focused and organised?
But all that aside, I'm much more simplistic in my view about all this...
I think it's a storm in a teacup really and that we shouldn't in this day and age be saying things like "the Scottish are One People!" and that we, south of the border, are another. We are all the same and I hate seeing people drawing lines in the sand, whether it's trendy, tourist friendly 'Yes' campaigners in kilts or nasty, poorly-educated EDL marchers.
Indeed, and pathetic though this sounds, I personally long for a future where we all come together as one, with no fences between us... rather than a world where we retreat behind fences that we should never have built. I know that is basically the contextual and historical setting for the Star Trek universe, but so be it!
Further, I find it interesting to see how some, wildly contrasting, people have come together in support of the 'Yes' vote.
We all know that the 'Better Together' team is a very shaky partnership of various Tories, Labour MPs, Social Democrats, ASDA-Walmart bosses, environmentalists... even George Galloway... and so on, but just think about the various right-wing elements joining up with your Russell Brands and your Vivian Westwoods as well. It's just as odd a bunch!
Off topic, I wonder if Russell Brand has ever given any thought that his consistently-aired 'Trews' YouTube channel philosophy of suggesting that humans need to break down the corporate* and political walls and live in small communes world-wide is merely a semantic shift (plus a swapping of some Eastern Spirituality and falafels for some fundamental Christianity and guns) from what most Libertarians and Tea Party activists in the USA are also saying right now? "Just sayin'!"
(* I note with interest that his YouTube account is fully 'monetised'... so why is that? N.B Here's an interesting angle from Private Eye.)
Anyway, what I'm saying is that you cannot look at the whole background story and compare it to that of other historical struggles - for example, say, the Québécois movement in Canada... even if the story of the political campaigns are VERY similar.
Scottish people are British people. English people are British people. They speak the same language in the main, and they look the same, and they like the same things.
Quick question:
I'm not going to Google this to cheat so hopefully someone out there reading this can inform me:
Has Alex Salmond ever spoken (at length) in Scottish Gaelic during any Scottish Parliament debates? I'm interested to know...
***
Talking of mixed(up)-cultural heritages, Braveheart is just a film by the way - and (although I think most people know) is wildly inaccurate (and I love it by the way)... so it still amazes me that some people cling to it as an inspiration for all this.
Moreover, the Union of 1707 is proof that Scotland and England has been tied by a friendship (of sorts, true) rather than the normal story of British Colonialism and land-grabbing that we see elsewhere. Indeed, one mustn't forget that England/Britain bailed out Scotland after its disastrous attempt at colonial expansion itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme
What's amazing is just how many Scottish people have contributed to or enriched the country AS A WHOLE over the past 300-400 years. From inheriting a Scottish king in 1603, to having three consecutive Prime Ministers in recent times with strong Scottish bloodlines.
True, if they had stayed inside Scottish borders they may have helped their home nation just as well, if not more... but who's to say they wouldn't have left anyway?
***
There are so many un-addressed economic concerns (and not just with currency questions, oil reserve estimates and nuclear submarine bases) with the independence movement that I feel a 'Yes' vote would do more harm to the Scottish people overall than do good... but I do hope I'm wrong, whatever the outcome.
Oh... and one last thing...
I don't want the inescapable prison of consecutive future Conservative Governments, which may be the result of Scottish independence for us in what is left of the United Kingdom after the referendum.
Scotland brings balance to the political game in the UK, even if it doesn't quite do enough to break the current Centrist tumor of the two party domination due to the first-past-the-post scheme.
As much I believe that the SNP are just Scotland's version of UKIP (yuk!)... we need them... in a full and whole United Kingdom, rather than a broken one.
ZeeOx.
Basically, I'm not for it.
Not, of course, that I have a say in the matter... but a 'No' result WILL have an impact on my life in some form AND, in a sense, will also change my current/future attitude towards the country and influence the possibility of me taking future trips there.
My last three holidays have all been to Scotland. I love the place and also have many Scottish friends... But what's interesting there I suppose is that these passionately Scottish friends aren't allowed to vote in the referendum because they no longer live there!
Anyway, without going too deep, I'll just say that my main reason for thinking the Union is worth keeping is because the 'Yes' cause has got the wrong target in their sights.
The problem with the political infrastructure in this country right now, and its Local, Regional, Devolved and National Governments, is not that 'England' is too dominant...or that the Conservatives don't care for the average child born in The Gorbals... (even if that might be true!)... it is the dominance of the capital of London. And.... the shackles that the Casino gaming-like world of stockbrokers and big banks has us ALL tied to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29238037
True, Scottish 'Yes' campaigners are encouraging their (possibly soon-to-be-ex)partners in the North, or Cornwall, or Wales to follow their suit and try and break free too, but let's be realistic about this: that is silly talk.
Cornwall does not need independence, it just needs help.
And Scotland does too.
These last minute 'MaxDevo' offers do smack of desperation, but the tactic might just actually win it for the 'No' vote as I type this... with more devolved powers than ever before given to Scotland to help them manage their own affairs.
I admit, I quite like devolution in principle. But surely it only comes about because we are useless at keeping a highly centralised, unitary government focused and organised?
But all that aside, I'm much more simplistic in my view about all this...
I think it's a storm in a teacup really and that we shouldn't in this day and age be saying things like "the Scottish are One People!" and that we, south of the border, are another. We are all the same and I hate seeing people drawing lines in the sand, whether it's trendy, tourist friendly 'Yes' campaigners in kilts or nasty, poorly-educated EDL marchers.
Indeed, and pathetic though this sounds, I personally long for a future where we all come together as one, with no fences between us... rather than a world where we retreat behind fences that we should never have built. I know that is basically the contextual and historical setting for the Star Trek universe, but so be it!
Further, I find it interesting to see how some, wildly contrasting, people have come together in support of the 'Yes' vote.
We all know that the 'Better Together' team is a very shaky partnership of various Tories, Labour MPs, Social Democrats, ASDA-Walmart bosses, environmentalists... even George Galloway... and so on, but just think about the various right-wing elements joining up with your Russell Brands and your Vivian Westwoods as well. It's just as odd a bunch!
Off topic, I wonder if Russell Brand has ever given any thought that his consistently-aired 'Trews' YouTube channel philosophy of suggesting that humans need to break down the corporate* and political walls and live in small communes world-wide is merely a semantic shift (plus a swapping of some Eastern Spirituality and falafels for some fundamental Christianity and guns) from what most Libertarians and Tea Party activists in the USA are also saying right now? "Just sayin'!"
(* I note with interest that his YouTube account is fully 'monetised'... so why is that? N.B Here's an interesting angle from Private Eye.)
Anyway, what I'm saying is that you cannot look at the whole background story and compare it to that of other historical struggles - for example, say, the Québécois movement in Canada... even if the story of the political campaigns are VERY similar.
Scottish people are British people. English people are British people. They speak the same language in the main, and they look the same, and they like the same things.
Quick question:
I'm not going to Google this to cheat so hopefully someone out there reading this can inform me:
Has Alex Salmond ever spoken (at length) in Scottish Gaelic during any Scottish Parliament debates? I'm interested to know...
***
Talking of mixed(up)-cultural heritages, Braveheart is just a film by the way - and (although I think most people know) is wildly inaccurate (and I love it by the way)... so it still amazes me that some people cling to it as an inspiration for all this.
Moreover, the Union of 1707 is proof that Scotland and England has been tied by a friendship (of sorts, true) rather than the normal story of British Colonialism and land-grabbing that we see elsewhere. Indeed, one mustn't forget that England/Britain bailed out Scotland after its disastrous attempt at colonial expansion itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme
What's amazing is just how many Scottish people have contributed to or enriched the country AS A WHOLE over the past 300-400 years. From inheriting a Scottish king in 1603, to having three consecutive Prime Ministers in recent times with strong Scottish bloodlines.
True, if they had stayed inside Scottish borders they may have helped their home nation just as well, if not more... but who's to say they wouldn't have left anyway?
***
There are so many un-addressed economic concerns (and not just with currency questions, oil reserve estimates and nuclear submarine bases) with the independence movement that I feel a 'Yes' vote would do more harm to the Scottish people overall than do good... but I do hope I'm wrong, whatever the outcome.
Oh... and one last thing...
I don't want the inescapable prison of consecutive future Conservative Governments, which may be the result of Scottish independence for us in what is left of the United Kingdom after the referendum.
Scotland brings balance to the political game in the UK, even if it doesn't quite do enough to break the current Centrist tumor of the two party domination due to the first-past-the-post scheme.
As much I believe that the SNP are just Scotland's version of UKIP (yuk!)... we need them... in a full and whole United Kingdom, rather than a broken one.
ZeeOx.
Monday, 4 August 2014
Posts coming soon!
Hello there.
This is just a quick post to say that I have overdue blog entries on several topics and that they are coming soon.
I know the correct nature of Blogging is to post regularly, like a diary, and not to go so deep into each entry as if one were writing a deeply researched thesis every time... but I don't want to just throw poorly thought out work onto this space.
Anyway, so, with that in mind... I apologise for the slow return here.
I am going to be adding my thoughts on HS2 (again!)... Densification... Garden Cities... Fracking... very soon. So watch this space! (Eventually!)
There are some horrible things happening out in the world right now... in South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine... Gaza... but we should never give up hope in finding solutions to problems, no matter how big or how small those problems may be.
Remember: we are all of the same flesh and can do great things if we work together. And we can also share enjoyable experiences...
Cheers,
ZeeOx.
This is just a quick post to say that I have overdue blog entries on several topics and that they are coming soon.
I know the correct nature of Blogging is to post regularly, like a diary, and not to go so deep into each entry as if one were writing a deeply researched thesis every time... but I don't want to just throw poorly thought out work onto this space.
Anyway, so, with that in mind... I apologise for the slow return here.
I am going to be adding my thoughts on HS2 (again!)... Densification... Garden Cities... Fracking... very soon. So watch this space! (Eventually!)
There are some horrible things happening out in the world right now... in South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine... Gaza... but we should never give up hope in finding solutions to problems, no matter how big or how small those problems may be.
Remember: we are all of the same flesh and can do great things if we work together. And we can also share enjoyable experiences...
Cheers,
ZeeOx.
Monday, 30 December 2013
How much space do we have?
This interesting December article from the BBC's website gives a little statistical background behind the claim that there could be a 'plague' of golf courses sweeping through the nation:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24378868
It focuses on the plight of the county of Surrey and a particularly hot debate over the need to create its 142nd(!) golf course at Cherkley Court... within its (just) 1662.5 square miles of land.
It then goes on to list the counties with the most percentages of land covered by golf courses and the number of 'holes' the courses contain.
Unfortunately, it does not then go into detail about how other land uses compare... because the figure of the largest 'offender', Merseyside (at 2.82% coverage*) is arguably very low if not given context. Some people may think that a figure of 2.82% is very little, and they'd be right really... so what was then needed was some other big 'offenders' listed just so we can have an idea of what impact these golf courses truly have.
Golf is a popular (or at least growing) sport no doubt, and the article presumably attempts to draw out the needs of its golfers by mentioning how many holes they get as well as land. It mentions the average figure per hole as 2.5ha and that a metropolitan area in Florida, USA has just 212 people per hole (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/mar/08/study-collier-marco-tops-national-leaderboard-for/?print=1).
Oddly, the charts then do not then give equivalent figures for the British counties... but a quick trip to Wikipedia gives me 1,381,200 for the population of Merseyside alongside its 729 holes... therefore giving us 1895 people per hole.
So, so far nothing helps the people arguing against having more golf courses. But what is interesting is the mention of the plight of Bermuda, where just under 10% of the whole (and very small) country is given over to golf courses! And the article does well at making one question just how much golf a place needs. It does not take sides.
For the record, I am not a big fan of golf courses. I like playing it from time to time, and don't think it is a good walk spoiled, so don't think I am really biased here. However, it is still an elitist sport in my opinion, and not the best type of 'sport' that should be supported by Governments to keep people healthy and happy. Also, they are a very good 'chameleon' at convincing people that they are 'good for the environment', because they are 'pretty', have nice big trees and lots of lovely green grass. What people do not know is that they are potentially very bad for the environment, if built in the place of true natural landscape**, and do not encourage/support the kind of biodiversity one might think. They also require a hell of a lot of water in maintenance... which we can't always afford.
Anyway, what the article also points out is that the percentages do not include the driving ranges, pitch and putts, and non-affiliated to Golf England courses. So... many of the places where 'ordinary folk' first encounter the game are not even covered.
For the record, the UK has 23.43% of its land defined as 'cultivated', but has over 70% of all land in agricultural use in total. It also has 11.65% under forest and woodland (DEFRA figures)... leaving very little left for the (subtracted) category of 'urban and other land', which golf courses (as well as housing, transport, sand dunes, inland waters...) must sit within.
This figure is 14.43% of all land for the whole of the UK... and therefore represents a truer aspect of what amount of the country is actually on the front line for potential change.
If we take the very rough figure that 1% of the UK is covered in golf courses, this actually represents a figure nearer 7% of the actual living space that we have given over to golfing. And, interpolated for Merseyside, gives a figure close to 20%.
In my humble opinion, that is enough for now. We don't have any virgin forest to hack away for the easy creation of more courses, and too many other land uses and needs in the areas where most people (who may want to then play golf) actually live. Golf courses are big creatures, and selfish. By definition, they don't allow many people to enjoy the sport at the same time in the way that other, more communal, sports do.
And I just can't understand how we can live in an era where we sell off school playing fields for housing but are happy to let new golf courses keep nibbling away at incredibly precious and fragile land. It's almost as if we care more for the needs of rich retired people as opposed to our children.
So... if you are desperate to play golf, then get out the Xbox, or take a holiday in Scotland.
Or Bermuda.
* Surrey is third, with a mere 2.65%
** http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html
P.S. If you are still in any doubt as to whether a figure of 2.82% can be a lot in terms of land use, read this similarly BBC-based article from way back in 2012 which suggests that there is a myth, an urban myth if you like, that the UK is "concreted over": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096.
It suggests a very tidy figure of 2.27% of for the proportion of England's landscape (not the UK's) which is "built on" and whilst, like a lot of such investigations, one can find a way to pick (golf?) holes in the statistics, it is both scary and fun to suggest that some parts of England could now be defined as more golf course than urban built-up space!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24378868
It focuses on the plight of the county of Surrey and a particularly hot debate over the need to create its 142nd(!) golf course at Cherkley Court... within its (just) 1662.5 square miles of land.
It then goes on to list the counties with the most percentages of land covered by golf courses and the number of 'holes' the courses contain.
Unfortunately, it does not then go into detail about how other land uses compare... because the figure of the largest 'offender', Merseyside (at 2.82% coverage*) is arguably very low if not given context. Some people may think that a figure of 2.82% is very little, and they'd be right really... so what was then needed was some other big 'offenders' listed just so we can have an idea of what impact these golf courses truly have.
Golf is a popular (or at least growing) sport no doubt, and the article presumably attempts to draw out the needs of its golfers by mentioning how many holes they get as well as land. It mentions the average figure per hole as 2.5ha and that a metropolitan area in Florida, USA has just 212 people per hole (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/mar/08/study-collier-marco-tops-national-leaderboard-for/?print=1).
Oddly, the charts then do not then give equivalent figures for the British counties... but a quick trip to Wikipedia gives me 1,381,200 for the population of Merseyside alongside its 729 holes... therefore giving us 1895 people per hole.
So, so far nothing helps the people arguing against having more golf courses. But what is interesting is the mention of the plight of Bermuda, where just under 10% of the whole (and very small) country is given over to golf courses! And the article does well at making one question just how much golf a place needs. It does not take sides.
For the record, I am not a big fan of golf courses. I like playing it from time to time, and don't think it is a good walk spoiled, so don't think I am really biased here. However, it is still an elitist sport in my opinion, and not the best type of 'sport' that should be supported by Governments to keep people healthy and happy. Also, they are a very good 'chameleon' at convincing people that they are 'good for the environment', because they are 'pretty', have nice big trees and lots of lovely green grass. What people do not know is that they are potentially very bad for the environment, if built in the place of true natural landscape**, and do not encourage/support the kind of biodiversity one might think. They also require a hell of a lot of water in maintenance... which we can't always afford.
Anyway, what the article also points out is that the percentages do not include the driving ranges, pitch and putts, and non-affiliated to Golf England courses. So... many of the places where 'ordinary folk' first encounter the game are not even covered.
For the record, the UK has 23.43% of its land defined as 'cultivated', but has over 70% of all land in agricultural use in total. It also has 11.65% under forest and woodland (DEFRA figures)... leaving very little left for the (subtracted) category of 'urban and other land', which golf courses (as well as housing, transport, sand dunes, inland waters...) must sit within.
This figure is 14.43% of all land for the whole of the UK... and therefore represents a truer aspect of what amount of the country is actually on the front line for potential change.
If we take the very rough figure that 1% of the UK is covered in golf courses, this actually represents a figure nearer 7% of the actual living space that we have given over to golfing. And, interpolated for Merseyside, gives a figure close to 20%.
In my humble opinion, that is enough for now. We don't have any virgin forest to hack away for the easy creation of more courses, and too many other land uses and needs in the areas where most people (who may want to then play golf) actually live. Golf courses are big creatures, and selfish. By definition, they don't allow many people to enjoy the sport at the same time in the way that other, more communal, sports do.
And I just can't understand how we can live in an era where we sell off school playing fields for housing but are happy to let new golf courses keep nibbling away at incredibly precious and fragile land. It's almost as if we care more for the needs of rich retired people as opposed to our children.
So... if you are desperate to play golf, then get out the Xbox, or take a holiday in Scotland.
Or Bermuda.
* Surrey is third, with a mere 2.65%
** http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html
P.S. If you are still in any doubt as to whether a figure of 2.82% can be a lot in terms of land use, read this similarly BBC-based article from way back in 2012 which suggests that there is a myth, an urban myth if you like, that the UK is "concreted over": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096.
It suggests a very tidy figure of 2.27% of for the proportion of England's landscape (not the UK's) which is "built on" and whilst, like a lot of such investigations, one can find a way to pick (golf?) holes in the statistics, it is both scary and fun to suggest that some parts of England could now be defined as more golf course than urban built-up space!
Tuesday, 3 December 2013
High Speed 2
I must write this entry for the HS2! I have had so much to say on it over these last few months but just kept forgetting to put it 'down' here. So, finally, here is an update of my latest thoughts - and perhaps I will have a chance to add more to this post later so it can be refined... and my overall opinion articulated as best I can.
I have just heard an interesting viewpoint on the 'latest' plans for HS2 you see, as the Government continues its push to get the show on the road. This viewpoint was that the reason behind the construction of the railway was/IS all down to the financial benefits.
If it is deemed profitable, it will go ahead... and if not, it won't.
That sounds clear and right... except that I was of the thinking that that wasn't really the main drive for it. Surely HS2's main drive is to be the middle phase of a three phase programme that connects the southern half of the UK with the north? That is, that there will be a HS3 as soon as HS2 is done, so that the whole country is connected up for our future needs.
BUT I am hardly hearing any references about the third phase... it is all about the second and nothing else.
The argument is all about projected costs and projected profits of HS2. There is a push for the taxpayer to pay all... and that an estimated £50 billion in costs will immediately create £15 billion in profits to trade in and between cities and towns outside of London...
In opposition, some have said that the projected 'profits' are based on unsound calculations, and that it is nigh-on impossible to fathom how much money will be made.
Similarly, there has been much discussion about what areas and settlements will do BADLY out of the scheme. In other words, those left off the path of the railway will be left out of a share of the profits... despite having to pay for the project through taxation. I have read that it will cost the taxpayer £1500 each overall, but I still need to investigate about what overall time period that refers to - and if it is to all the populace or those on the route (a la the Olympics local taxation).
Anyway, all that aside, I just can't understand why the 'fundamentals' aren't being argued. I think the fundamentals are to do with the development timescale and the available technology. I just don't think a 225 mph train running through the Home Counties to Birmingham a decade from now is going to be of any great worth. At least, in comparison to the overheads.
What should we do instead?
Well, for fear of being a broken record here, as in my argument against the need for a third runway for Heathrow, I think the way we approach business is the key here. London dominates the UK, in all ways, and we need to spread the profits out... by using digital means. Digital business is done in the 'cloud'... it does not need so much expensive infrastructure. Some yes, but wires aren't as wide as trains.
People seem to think that HS2 will help new businesses set up in the north, and that may be true to an extent. But I think the impact will be small. The main 'profit' will simply be an increase in the numbers of rich commuters being able to commute from homes OUTSIDE London INTO London in record time to do their high-end work. Just like before.
The increase in speed will just allow commuters to live (just that) little bit further out than before, buying up the best houses in places that were originally too far from London. And what does that mean? It means local people being priced out of particular areas because these affluent London commuters push up the prices of their housing, but then give nothing back to the local business community as a result.
In terms of technology, if we must push for a fancy train, then why not go full-hog and commit to a Maglev solution? These trains go much faster than conventional trains. 300-400+ mph is feasible. Current trains in Spain, France, China and so on already average the 200+ mph speeds that we are trying to target here... and remember that this thing is going to take ages to build once compulsory land purchases are given the go ahead. Who knows what they will do next why we are still building?
Britain led the way with innovation in the railways once, so why not be more radical? Be ahead of the curve, so to speak.
Also... and here's the other idea: if we must have HS2, then why not leave it 'til the end and build HS3 first?
We can then genuinely target business growth OUTSIDE London by encouraging commuting between the Far North and Midlands... and address the urgent need for new housing in areas that can accommodate it, rather than the already crowded South-East.
How good would that be? New, affordable, housing in the north, and new jobs 'fizzing' into being as a result of a modern railway that encourages business to set-up and locate away from the capital.
Once that has all kicked in, we can connect the south with the north with HS2 and have the more balanced country that we all deserve.
Right, that will do for now. I will add subsequent entries or revisions to the above a.s.a.p. as I see fit. I know I had a few more points to add, although my main point has been made: If we must do this - let's have HS3 first, HS2 later!
Cheers,
ZeeOx
http://www.hs2.org.uk/hs2-phase-one-hybrid-bill
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24012888
I have just heard an interesting viewpoint on the 'latest' plans for HS2 you see, as the Government continues its push to get the show on the road. This viewpoint was that the reason behind the construction of the railway was/IS all down to the financial benefits.
If it is deemed profitable, it will go ahead... and if not, it won't.
That sounds clear and right... except that I was of the thinking that that wasn't really the main drive for it. Surely HS2's main drive is to be the middle phase of a three phase programme that connects the southern half of the UK with the north? That is, that there will be a HS3 as soon as HS2 is done, so that the whole country is connected up for our future needs.
BUT I am hardly hearing any references about the third phase... it is all about the second and nothing else.
The argument is all about projected costs and projected profits of HS2. There is a push for the taxpayer to pay all... and that an estimated £50 billion in costs will immediately create £15 billion in profits to trade in and between cities and towns outside of London...
In opposition, some have said that the projected 'profits' are based on unsound calculations, and that it is nigh-on impossible to fathom how much money will be made.
Similarly, there has been much discussion about what areas and settlements will do BADLY out of the scheme. In other words, those left off the path of the railway will be left out of a share of the profits... despite having to pay for the project through taxation. I have read that it will cost the taxpayer £1500 each overall, but I still need to investigate about what overall time period that refers to - and if it is to all the populace or those on the route (a la the Olympics local taxation).
Anyway, all that aside, I just can't understand why the 'fundamentals' aren't being argued. I think the fundamentals are to do with the development timescale and the available technology. I just don't think a 225 mph train running through the Home Counties to Birmingham a decade from now is going to be of any great worth. At least, in comparison to the overheads.
What should we do instead?
Well, for fear of being a broken record here, as in my argument against the need for a third runway for Heathrow, I think the way we approach business is the key here. London dominates the UK, in all ways, and we need to spread the profits out... by using digital means. Digital business is done in the 'cloud'... it does not need so much expensive infrastructure. Some yes, but wires aren't as wide as trains.
People seem to think that HS2 will help new businesses set up in the north, and that may be true to an extent. But I think the impact will be small. The main 'profit' will simply be an increase in the numbers of rich commuters being able to commute from homes OUTSIDE London INTO London in record time to do their high-end work. Just like before.
The increase in speed will just allow commuters to live (just that) little bit further out than before, buying up the best houses in places that were originally too far from London. And what does that mean? It means local people being priced out of particular areas because these affluent London commuters push up the prices of their housing, but then give nothing back to the local business community as a result.
In terms of technology, if we must push for a fancy train, then why not go full-hog and commit to a Maglev solution? These trains go much faster than conventional trains. 300-400+ mph is feasible. Current trains in Spain, France, China and so on already average the 200+ mph speeds that we are trying to target here... and remember that this thing is going to take ages to build once compulsory land purchases are given the go ahead. Who knows what they will do next why we are still building?
Britain led the way with innovation in the railways once, so why not be more radical? Be ahead of the curve, so to speak.
Also... and here's the other idea: if we must have HS2, then why not leave it 'til the end and build HS3 first?
We can then genuinely target business growth OUTSIDE London by encouraging commuting between the Far North and Midlands... and address the urgent need for new housing in areas that can accommodate it, rather than the already crowded South-East.
How good would that be? New, affordable, housing in the north, and new jobs 'fizzing' into being as a result of a modern railway that encourages business to set-up and locate away from the capital.
Once that has all kicked in, we can connect the south with the north with HS2 and have the more balanced country that we all deserve.
Right, that will do for now. I will add subsequent entries or revisions to the above a.s.a.p. as I see fit. I know I had a few more points to add, although my main point has been made: If we must do this - let's have HS3 first, HS2 later!
Cheers,
ZeeOx
http://www.hs2.org.uk/hs2-phase-one-hybrid-bill
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24012888
Monday, 10 June 2013
So... it is June... and I have still not posted the two blog entries I promised. Sorry about that. I know I have written and saved something for the HSR2 entry somewhere, so that must be coming soon at least (surely!). But as for the Town and Country text, mmmm. Watch this space! (But not often, as you will get bored... and sore eyes.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)