HS2 fund "unacceptable drain on depleted finances" (From Bucks Free Press)

Shame on this man who does not live close to the proposed rail line. Perhaps he would be prepared to swap his home with someone who lives near the line!
Would he then still complain about the campaign against the costly plan? Cheryl Gillan has already sold up her home near the route and fled the area. Unfit to be an MP now? Shabby conduct...

But I do.

The High Speed Rail is good for the Country and will be a far lasting legacy for the future than the stupidity of investing £30 Billion on a 4-week Olympics.

And as a Council Tax Payer I object to the expenditure of my Council Taxes on a futile proposal to stop the project.

The people objecting are more concerned about their house values than the country and forget that the concentration of wealth south of the Warwickshire county is disproportionate to the fact that there are others in the country who would benefit.

Interestingly enough I feel that £32billion + for a 'vanity' project where it has been proven that the business case doesn't add up is "an unacceptable drain on the COUNTRY's depleted finances". And before anybody in favour of HS2 comes on here and knocks me as just another NIMBY (the only view supporters of HS2 can think of as a response to people against HS2), I do not live on the proposed route or anywhere near it. I just think it is crazy to spend all this money when there are other places the money could be better spent. I am a taxpayer and Martin Tett has my support to set aside money to fight HS2 as I think it will save the whole Country a lot of money in the long run if we get this project scrapped.

There is no Mandate for these Councils to pay for these issues when they close down Linraries, Care Centres for the Old and Infirm.

You are "alright Jack" but there are many older people who would benefit from having some of this "fighting fund" correctly placed to support the needy.

And the so-called Mayor gets his rewards as a long lived salary then a CBE and then a Knighthood. It makes you feel sick.

Of course Carl Shillito is not just a "resident" and "SUPPORTER of the High Speed 2 project" but is the General Manager and Deputy MD of Macrail Systems Limited. So his will be a view which is likely to be at least tempered by the thought of earning potential from the project and possibly from an on-going debate/consultation/
review process.
A bit like the developers telling us we need to build more homes.

When will the anti-HS2 brigade wake up to the fact that the government has an electoral mandate to build a high speed rail (HSR) network in the UK. The preferred Route 3 was published in Feb 2010; this was 3 months before the May 2010 General Election when all 3 main political parties included support for HSR in their election manifestos (26million people voted for these parties and their policies).
By all means local people may object to any unreasonable local impact of the proposals, but it is not right that Chiltern Hillbillies, NIMBYs, Luddites, Horse & Hound readers and the truely menopausal (male & female) be allowed to dictate government policy and the wish of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

Well done Mutley, for the research. As for the mandate, that's disingenuous because nobody votes for a party based on one single issue, it is a game of least-worst scenario when voting. Most people who voted for the coalition parties did so so as to NOT vote for the party that was in office previously. I live nowhere near the route either but truly feel that, rail fares being as they are, the demand for this will under-perform drastically. It's the door to door time that counts on journeys, not the small segment of an overall trip represented by the middle bit on the train.

Windsorian wrote:
When will the anti-HS2 brigade wake up to the fact that the government has an electoral mandate to build a high speed rail (HSR) network in the UK. The preferred Route 3 was published in Feb 2010; this was 3 months before the May 2010 General Election when all 3 main political parties included support for HSR in their election manifestos (26million people voted for these parties and their policies). By all means local people may object to any unreasonable local impact of the proposals, but it is not right that Chiltern Hillbillies, NIMBYs, Luddites, Horse & Hound readers and the truely menopausal (male & female) be allowed to dictate government policy and the wish of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

Oh dear. All three parties were for HS2 because they know/know that if they came out against it they would lose votes in the North, where they believe that somehow an overly expensive (both to build and travel on) railway will somehow bridge the North-South divide.
.
It would enhance the debate if Windsorian came across as intelligent enough to realise this instead of coming out with derogatory remarks about people who don't share his/her opinion. Sadly, this is something Windsorian is obviously not in a position to do.
.
So if you want to be conned by political parties making policies for their own benefit and not the people then fair enough.

Hey guys, thanks for the feedback. Yes I do work in the rail industry (orange coat a giveaway I thought) but although I am a supporter of the Campaign for High Speed Rail the company I work for is not involved with HS2 consultancy at all and if we ever get any work on the project it would be way in the future and not guaranteed by any means. We are looking very long term here, let me put it this way if I get a ticket on the first HS2 to Birmingham it will be a nice 70th birthday present!!
And for the record I do live very close (100 yards) to the Chiltern Line and will be about half a mile from HS2.
Cheers.

Carl@Denham wrote:
Hey guys, thanks for the feedback. Yes I do work in the rail industry (orange coat a giveaway I thought) but although I am a supporter of the Campaign for High Speed Rail the company I work for is not involved with HS2 consultancy at all and if we ever get any work on the project it would be way in the future and not guaranteed by any means. We are looking very long term here, let me put it this way if I get a ticket on the first HS2 to Birmingham it will be a nice 70th birthday present!! And for the record I do live very close (100 yards) to the Chiltern Line and will be about half a mile from HS2. Cheers.

If you do get a ticket, remember that you would first need to catch a train take a tube from Marylebone (30minutes) walk or take a tube to Baker Street (5 minutes to platform and waiting, 2 minutes journey, then tube from Baker Street to King's Cross, 5minutes waiting, platform time then 19 minutes travel time. Total thus far 61 minutes, wait for then board HS2, rough wait time 10mins _ 48mins journey time = 71minutes,

Add the two together: 71minutes + 61minutes = 2hrs 12mins.

!
!
Cost cheapest fair £9.80 to King's Cross less the fair from King's Cross to Birmingham, say £20 = £29.80 cheapest.
!
!
Alternatively you could take the Denham to Birmingham Moor street for 19:80 and it too, would only take 1hr 57 minutes with one change at High Wycombe.

geoffW wrote:

Windsorian wrote: When will the anti-HS2 brigade wake up to the fact that the government has an electoral mandate to build a high speed rail (HSR) network in the UK. The preferred Route 3 was published in Feb 2010; this was 3 months before the May 2010 General Election when all 3 main political parties included support for HSR in their election manifestos (26million people voted for these parties and their policies). By all means local people may object to any unreasonable local impact of the proposals, but it is not right that Chiltern Hillbillies, NIMBYs, Luddites, Horse & Hound readers and the truely menopausal (male & female) be allowed to dictate government policy and the wish of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

Oh dear. All three parties were for HS2 because they know/know that if they came out against it they would lose votes in the North, where they believe that somehow an overly expensive (both to build and travel on) railway will somehow bridge the North-South divide. . It would enhance the debate if Windsorian came across as intelligent enough to realise this instead of coming out with derogatory remarks about people who don't share his/her opinion. Sadly, this is something Windsorian is obviously not in a position to do. . So if you want to be conned by political parties making policies for their own benefit and not the people then fair enough.

Pretty ironic isn't it, that Windsorian should infer that VOTERS shouldn't do such a dreadful thing as to interfere with GOVERNMENT policy LOL.
!
Personally, Never read the Horse & Hounds, don't live near the proposed line so not a Nimby, Chiltern Hillbilly? maybe but not sure what one of those is, what I am sure of though, is that Ad Hominem is defined as follows:
!
!

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions

I think that sums up Windsorian succintly.

Well I would just be going along for the occassion of course. If I wanted to go to Birmingham on any other day I would use the Chiltern Line and the service from Denham and the other local stations would be much better (more seats, more trains stopping) once long distance traffic had switched to HS2.

Carl@Denham wrote:
Well I would just be going along for the occassion of course. If I wanted to go to Birmingham on any other day I would use the Chiltern Line and the service from Denham and the other local stations would be much better (more seats, more trains stopping) once long distance traffic had switched to HS2.

I doubt it Carl, the likelyhood would be that less monies would be available for Chiltern line etc, therefore services would actually be scaled back. As with HS1, passengers are still having to stand as I found out on a recent trip to Lewes.

Most HS1 traffic is international apart from the "bullet train" to North Kent so there was never the same potential to relieve domestic services as with HS2. In any case I don't think there would be any effect on services to Lewes which is on the line to Eastbourne and way off the HS1 route. If services on the "classic" rail network do suffer as a result of HS2 it means that things in the UK are going to be exactly the opposite of the experience in most other countries that have adopted high speed rail, and I just can't see why that would be.

Windsorian wrote:
When will the anti-HS2 brigade wake up to the fact that the government has an electoral mandate to build a high speed rail (HSR) network in the UK. The preferred Route 3 was published in Feb 2010; this was 3 months before the May 2010 General Election when all 3 main political parties included support for HSR in their election manifestos (26million people voted for these parties and their policies).
By all means local people may object to any unreasonable local impact of the proposals, but it is not right that Chiltern Hillbillies, NIMBYs, Luddites, Horse & Hound readers and the truely menopausal (male & female) be allowed to dictate government policy and the wish of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

It seems to me that around these forums and comments on articles those that are against HS2 have lots of genuine well-thought reasons against the project whereas those for HS2(not very many I have seen) have really only one response and that is to call anybody opposed to HS2 names. I am 100% against HS2 feel the business case is flawed and a waste of money, I do not live along the route or anywhere near it, so am not a NIMBY, not against improvements for Technology so not a Luddite, do not read the Horse & Hounds and only 30 so not menopausal. So there are people outside of your name calling categories against HS2.

The original letter does raise an interesting issue - is it legitimate to use ratepayers monies to fund a campaign against a project that'll be defended using taxpayers monies?
.
The only "winners" in this scenario will be the legal profession. It's entirely possibly (in fact likely) that hundreds of thousands of pounds will be spent by both sides, which is bizarre when you realise that, generally, the ratepayers are the same people as the taxpayers. We find ourselves in a position where a portion of our rates are being used to fund a legal campaign against a rival campaign being funded through our taxes. How crackpot is that!

gpn01 wrote:
The original letter does raise an interesting issue - is it legitimate to use ratepayers monies to fund a campaign against a project that'll be defended using taxpayers monies? . The only "winners" in this scenario will be the legal profession. It's entirely possibly (in fact likely) that hundreds of thousands of pounds will be spent by both sides, which is bizarre when you realise that, generally, the ratepayers are the same people as the taxpayers. We find ourselves in a position where a portion of our rates are being used to fund a legal campaign against a rival campaign being funded through our taxes. How crackpot is that!

This raises an important point that when projects are deemed to be in the national interest, whether it is right that a small body of vocal opponents are able to loot ratepayers funds in order to oppose an entire project.
By all means spend money to eliminate or mitigate local impacts, but it seems unreal that there should be any intention of blocking an entire project.

Windsorian wrote:

gpn01 wrote: The original letter does raise an interesting issue - is it legitimate to use ratepayers monies to fund a campaign against a project that'll be defended using taxpayers monies? . The only "winners" in this scenario will be the legal profession. It's entirely possibly (in fact likely) that hundreds of thousands of pounds will be spent by both sides, which is bizarre when you realise that, generally, the ratepayers are the same people as the taxpayers. We find ourselves in a position where a portion of our rates are being used to fund a legal campaign against a rival campaign being funded through our taxes. How crackpot is that!

This raises an important point that when projects are deemed to be in the national interest, whether it is right that a small body of vocal opponents are able to loot ratepayers funds in order to oppose an entire project. By all means spend money to eliminate or mitigate local impacts, but it seems unreal that there should be any intention of blocking an entire project.

Think the Local Councils should also re-read the Localism Act, particularly Chapter 6 - "NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS"

Just a quick quip as there are some good points coming out about the use of council funds. Look, I support HS2 yes, but I have never resorted to name calling or negative campaigning and I think there has been a bit of that on both sides to tell you the truth. But whatever your views, and a lot of people I know and respect are on the opposite side to me on HS2, this use of council funds is all wrong. Someone told me that it was only a small amount compared to what the Government has spent developing HS2 but that is not the point. What the Government spends is out of the transport budget approved by Parliament. This money the councils are spending is supposed to be for local services not political campaigns. If they want to fight HS2 it is their right, I accept that 100%, but if they want to raise funds to do so they can take their collecting tins onto the high streets on Saturday afternoons, and if as many people are opposed to HS2 as they say they should have no problem filling them!

Carl@Denham wrote:
Just a quick quip as there are some good points coming out about the use of council funds. Look, I support HS2 yes, but I have never resorted to name calling or negative campaigning and I think there has been a bit of that on both sides to tell you the truth. But whatever your views, and a lot of people I know and respect are on the opposite side to me on HS2, this use of council funds is all wrong. Someone told me that it was only a small amount compared to what the Government has spent developing HS2 but that is not the point. What the Government spends is out of the transport budget approved by Parliament. This money the councils are spending is supposed to be for local services not political campaigns. If they want to fight HS2 it is their right, I accept that 100%, but if they want to raise funds to do so they can take their collecting tins onto the high streets on Saturday afternoons, and if as many people are opposed to HS2 as they say they should have no problem filling them!

You suggest that the use of Council funds is wrong but one of the fundamental rights we as people have, is supposedly an equality of arms before the law, it's a myth and unfortunately money talks as the Councils themselves know very well. Would a campaign group be able to afford to take on the Government? I very much doubt it, especially when various interested parties would also likely be represented, unfortunately, our perverse Courts system means that the very REAL threat regarding costs, would be too great a risk for a campaign group to bear.
!
!
The Government and the Council already spend millions each year on lawyers, it is a sad fact that a considerable number of lawyers do get fat from the public purse, I've seen Councils spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on legal teams over a single parking ticket because the ramifications from a lose would have been immense; they think nothing of spending hundreds of pounds on buying legal opinion srom a dodgy QC who will PROVIDE an opinion which can be used to mask bad and unlawful behaviour, hat which they spend on the HS2 project is a drop in the ocean compared to what Councils spend annually, do an FOI request if you don't beleive me.
!
I'm pleased in this instance, that our money is being used to mitigate or protect the quality of life of those mostly affected, I won't personally be affected in the slightest by HS2 but i'm more than happy for my taxes to be used to qualify the law and provide residents who otherwise would not have the means, have an equality of arms against Government and some very powerful organisations.

Unlike Wayneo I do object to my taxes being wasted on a campaign that is just a face saving exercise for local Tories to make it appear they are doing something.

If they wanted to do 'something' all the Tory Councillors could resign from the Conservative Party and run the local councils as an Independent Conservative' group.

That would send a strong message to the Government and wouldn't cost me or other tax payers a penny.

yog wrote:
Unlike Wayneo I do object to my taxes being wasted on a campaign that is just a face saving exercise for local Tories to make it appear they are doing something.

If they wanted to do 'something' all the Tory Councillors could resign from the Conservative Party and run the local councils as an Independent Conservative' group.

That would send a strong message to the Government and wouldn't cost me or other tax payers a penny.

Shut up.
You are a liberal democrat and as such have no right to criticise anyone because your beloved leader Cleggy is so far up Cameron's backside that he is probably tickling his tonsils :))

Enjoy the power because come the next election the lib dem party will be dead.

yog wrote:
Unlike Wayneo I do object to my taxes being wasted on a campaign that is just a face saving exercise for local Tories to make it appear they are doing something. If they wanted to do 'something' all the Tory Councillors could resign from the Conservative Party and run the local councils as an Independent Conservative' group. That would send a strong message to the Government and wouldn't cost me or other tax payers a penny.

As Demoness put the case succintly, I can only add that I didn't see many LibDems falling on their swords when their boy leader did the swift about- turn regarding tuition fees, you know, when the LibDems said they wouldn't charge then did the exact opposite as soon as they got a whiff of power.

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote:
Unlike Wayneo I do object to my taxes being wasted on a campaign that is just a face saving exercise for local Tories to make it appear they are doing something. If they wanted to do 'something' all the Tory Councillors could resign from the Conservative Party and run the local councils as an Independent Conservative' group. That would send a strong message to the Government and wouldn't cost me or other tax payers a penny.

As Demoness put the case succintly, I can only add that I didn't see many LibDems falling on their swords when their boy leader did the swift about- turn regarding tuition fees, you know, when the LibDems said they wouldn't charge then did the exact opposite as soon as they got a whiff of power.

Am I talking to you? :))
You were HORRIBLE to me the other day!!


*sulks*

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote:
Unlike Wayneo I do object to my taxes being wasted on a campaign that is just a face saving exercise for local Tories to make it appear they are doing something. If they wanted to do 'something' all the Tory Councillors could resign from the Conservative Party and run the local councils as an Independent Conservative' group. That would send a strong message to the Government and wouldn't cost me or other tax payers a penny.

As Demoness put the case succintly, I can only add that I didn't see many LibDems falling on their swords when their boy leader did the swift about- turn regarding tuition fees, you know, when the LibDems said they wouldn't charge then did the exact opposite as soon as they got a whiff of power.

You mean when the Lib Dems made sure that graduates will not have to pay back their fees unless they earn a good wage. No win no fee.

Back to the matter in hand why is Wayneo defending the waste of our local taxes?

demoness the second wrote:

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote: Unlike Wayneo I do object to my taxes being wasted on a campaign that is just a face saving exercise for local Tories to make it appear they are doing something. If they wanted to do 'something' all the Tory Councillors could resign from the Conservative Party and run the local councils as an Independent Conservative' group. That would send a strong message to the Government and wouldn't cost me or other tax payers a penny.

As Demoness put the case succintly, I can only add that I didn't see many LibDems falling on their swords when their boy leader did the swift about- turn regarding tuition fees, you know, when the LibDems said they wouldn't charge then did the exact opposite as soon as they got a whiff of power.

Am I talking to you? :)) You were HORRIBLE to me the other day!! *sulks*

Oh bNgger, was that you??? (it was, j just checked assuming it was the parking) :-( .sorry DM, didn't read the name else I would have known (how can I say), your forthright style that I'm so used to now :-).

wayneo wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote: Unlike Wayneo I do object to my taxes being wasted on a campaign that is just a face saving exercise for local Tories to make it appear they are doing something. If they wanted to do 'something' all the Tory Councillors could resign from the Conservative Party and run the local councils as an Independent Conservative' group. That would send a strong message to the Government and wouldn't cost me or other tax payers a penny.

As Demoness put the case succintly, I can only add that I didn't see many LibDems falling on their swords when their boy leader did the swift about- turn regarding tuition fees, you know, when the LibDems said they wouldn't charge then did the exact opposite as soon as they got a whiff of power.

Am I talking to you? :)) You were HORRIBLE to me the other day!! *sulks*

Oh bNgger, was that you??? (it was, j just checked assuming it was the parking) :-( .sorry DM, didn't read the name else I would have known (how can I say), your forthright style that I'm so used to now :-).

Well I was shocked.
So I flounced away in a strop :)))

yog wrote:

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote: Unlike Wayneo I do object to my taxes being wasted on a campaign that is just a face saving exercise for local Tories to make it appear they are doing something. If they wanted to do 'something' all the Tory Councillors could resign from the Conservative Party and run the local councils as an Independent Conservative' group. That would send a strong message to the Government and wouldn't cost me or other tax payers a penny.

As Demoness put the case succintly, I can only add that I didn't see many LibDems falling on their swords when their boy leader did the swift about- turn regarding tuition fees, you know, when the LibDems said they wouldn't charge then did the exact opposite as soon as they got a whiff of power.

You mean when the Lib Dems made sure that graduates will not have to pay back their fees unless they earn a good wage. No win no fee. Back to the matter in hand why is Wayneo defending the waste of our local taxes?

Oh right, hmm, how the hell does that compare with the pledge:

"I vote to oppose ANY increase in tuition fees"

???????

Anyway, regarding "waste of OUR local taxes":

1. I understand that you live in Brighton so one would assume they aren't YOUR taxes.
2. I don't read or hear of many people complaining other than those FOR HS2, the charlatans who want to seek political capital of which there is a small tincy, wincy minority.
3. In comparison to other legal fees,the spend is tiny in comparison. Equality of arms in view is money well spent though I'd rather not have to fill the boots of lawyers who I would have No time for but that's the system we have, our "democracy" has given way to a feud in the Courts i'm afraid.
4. What other option is there other than bending over and taking it?

demoness the second wrote:

wayneo wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote: Unlike Wayneo I do object to my taxes being wasted on a campaign that is just a face saving exercise for local Tories to make it appear they are doing something. If they wanted to do 'something' all the Tory Councillors could resign from the Conservative Party and run the local councils as an Independent Conservative' group. That would send a strong message to the Government and wouldn't cost me or other tax payers a penny.

As Demoness put the case succintly, I can only add that I didn't see many LibDems falling on their swords when their boy leader did the swift about- turn regarding tuition fees, you know, when the LibDems said they wouldn't charge then did the exact opposite as soon as they got a whiff of power.

Am I talking to you? :)) You were HORRIBLE to me the other day!! *sulks*

Oh bNgger, was that you??? (it was, j just checked assuming it was the parking) :-( .sorry DM, didn't read the name else I would have known (how can I say), your forthright style that I'm so used to now :-).

Well I was shocked. So I flounced away in a strop :)))

I've never seen you give up in a strop before :0)

gpn01 wrote:

Windsorian wrote:

gpn01 wrote: The original letter does raise an interesting issue - is it legitimate to use ratepayers monies to fund a campaign against a project that'll be defended using taxpayers monies? . The only "winners" in this scenario will be the legal profession. It's entirely possibly (in fact likely) that hundreds of thousands of pounds will be spent by both sides, which is bizarre when you realise that, generally, the ratepayers are the same people as the taxpayers. We find ourselves in a position where a portion of our rates are being used to fund a legal campaign against a rival campaign being funded through our taxes. How crackpot is that!

This raises an important point that when projects are deemed to be in the national interest, whether it is right that a small body of vocal opponents are able to loot ratepayers funds in order to oppose an entire project. By all means spend money to eliminate or mitigate local impacts, but it seems unreal that there should be any intention of blocking an entire project.

Think the Local Councils should also re-read the Localism Act, particularly Chapter 6 - "NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS"

That i'm afraid is giving far too much power to the Secretary of State, slowly but slowly, the role of Parliament is being diluted further

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote:

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote: Unlike Wayneo I do object to my taxes being wasted on a campaign that is just a face saving exercise for local Tories to make it appear they are doing something. If they wanted to do 'something' all the Tory Councillors could resign from the Conservative Party and run the local councils as an Independent Conservative' group. That would send a strong message to the Government and wouldn't cost me or other tax payers a penny.

As Demoness put the case succintly, I can only add that I didn't see many LibDems falling on their swords when their boy leader did the swift about- turn regarding tuition fees, you know, when the LibDems said they wouldn't charge then did the exact opposite as soon as they got a whiff of power.

You mean when the Lib Dems made sure that graduates will not have to pay back their fees unless they earn a good wage. No win no fee. Back to the matter in hand why is Wayneo defending the waste of our local taxes?

Oh right, hmm, how the hell does that compare with the pledge:

"I vote to oppose ANY increase in tuition fees"

???????

Anyway, regarding "waste of OUR local taxes":

1. I understand that you live in Brighton so one would assume they aren't YOUR taxes.
2. I don't read or hear of many people complaining other than those FOR HS2, the charlatans who want to seek political capital of which there is a small tincy, wincy minority.
3. In comparison to other legal fees,the spend is tiny in comparison. Equality of arms in view is money well spent though I'd rather not have to fill the boots of lawyers who I would have No time for but that's the system we have, our "democracy" has given way to a feud in the Courts i'm afraid.
4. What other option is there other than bending over and taking it?

It's going to happen so why waste further money if not to pretend local councillors are doing 'something'?

We seem to be going off on a bit of a tangent here. When I originally wrote to the Free Press I did actually say that I wasn't trying to convert anyone to the pro-HS2 cause, I have far too much respect for most of the local people who are concerned about it to think that I would be able to do so anyway. But the real worry is the amount of council taxpayers' money that may possibly be used up in a futile legal challenge to the Government. I presume the basis for this would be that the Government has somehow ignored the consultation results. But the consultation was exactly that, consultation, not a binding referendum and whatever headway is made on this issue will ultimately founder in the courts and we will all be the poorer for it. If the councils want to continue their campaign they can do so by lobbying Parliament as the legislation is debated by the Commons and Lords and goes through its committee stages. Ultimately they could field candidates at the next General Election if that is what they want to do and take this battle to the ballot box. I repeat that I would never deny anyone the right to protest against HS2 or try to stop it, we live in a democracy, I just don't want people using my/our money that is supposed to be for local services to fund that campaign.

yog wrote:

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote:

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote: Unlike Wayneo I do object to my taxes being wasted on a campaign that is just a face saving exercise for local Tories to make it appear they are doing something. If they wanted to do 'something' all the Tory Councillors could resign from the Conservative Party and run the local councils as an Independent Conservative' group. That would send a strong message to the Government and wouldn't cost me or other tax payers a penny.

As Demoness put the case succintly, I can only add that I didn't see many LibDems falling on their swords when their boy leader did the swift about- turn regarding tuition fees, you know, when the LibDems said they wouldn't charge then did the exact opposite as soon as they got a whiff of power.

You mean when the Lib Dems made sure that graduates will not have to pay back their fees unless they earn a good wage. No win no fee. Back to the matter in hand why is Wayneo defending the waste of our local taxes?

Oh right, hmm, how the hell does that compare with the pledge:

"I vote to oppose ANY increase in tuition fees"

??????? Anyway, regarding "waste of OUR local taxes": 1. I understand that you live in Brighton so one would assume they aren't YOUR taxes. 2. I don't read or hear of many people complaining other than those FOR HS2, the charlatans who want to seek political capital of which there is a small tincy, wincy minority. 3. In comparison to other legal fees,the spend is tiny in comparison. Equality of arms in view is money well spent though I'd rather not have to fill the boots of lawyers who I would have No time for but that's the system we have, our "democracy" has given way to a feud in the Courts i'm afraid. 4. What other option is there other than bending over and taking it?

It's going to happen so why waste further money if not to pretend local councillors are doing 'something'?

What a fantastic attitude from the LibDems, it's going to happen so we'll just bend over, my my, thank god your likes weren't in power during the Falklands.

Yeah they might not have sunk a battleship that was not involved in any combat and was sailing away from the islands. Over 500 young men would now be still alive and living fruitful lives.

Carl@Denham wrote:
We seem to be going off on a bit of a tangent here. When I originally wrote to the Free Press I did actually say that I wasn't trying to convert anyone to the pro-HS2 cause, I have far too much respect for most of the local people who are concerned about it to think that I would be able to do so anyway. But the real worry is the amount of council taxpayers' money that may possibly be used up in a futile legal challenge to the Government. I presume the basis for this would be that the Government has somehow ignored the consultation results. But the consultation was exactly that, consultation, not a binding referendum and whatever headway is made on this issue will ultimately founder in the courts and we will all be the poorer for it. If the councils want to continue their campaign they can do so by lobbying Parliament as the legislation is debated by the Commons and Lords and goes through its committee stages. Ultimately they could field candidates at the next General Election if that is what they want to do and take this battle to the ballot box. I repeat that I would never deny anyone the right to protest against HS2 or try to stop it, we live in a democracy, I just don't want people using my/our money that is supposed to be for local services to fund that campaign.

Government (at all levels) have lost in the Courts many times with respect to the Consultation process, you are right to say that Consultation is not a referendum (though i think if Consultation results were taken into consideration, many legal cases wouldn't be required in the first place), it's not so much the ignoring of the consultation results but of the consultation process. As for the process being futile, how will one know whether it's futile unless the legal avenues are at least explored and besides, I doubt very much whether a challenge would rest soley on the Consultation process alone.
!
I'm not sure how, without the benefit of legal argument of both cases being put forward, how you could claim that a legal challenge would "flounder"? In fact I am comfortable in stating that you can't. There are many cases that go through the Courts, they do so because the law requires that a challenge to a decision, (Judicial Review) is undertaken within three months of the decision having been made; it is a strict rule that does not wait for elections,(the next of which will be in 2015); to suggest that we should only challenge Government decisions at the ballot box is to politely put it, puzzling, time constraints aside,it might suit the developer to delay until an election but it does not provide relief in the interim to those that will incur damage from the prospect of such a development taking place. Remember too, that Government is is not the same as Parliament and therefore the Courts 'job' is to determine whether the Government has conducted it's business to that which Parliament intended.
!
Also, using your logic of not challenging Government until an election,have a look on Bailli and look at how many cases UK Government have lost.

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Yeah they might not have sunk a battleship that was not involved in any combat and was sailing away from the islands. Over 500 young men would now be still alive and living fruitful lives.

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/uknews/d
efence/8965405/Belgr
ano-was-heading-to-t
he-Falklands-secret-
papers-reveal.html

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote:

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote:

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote: Unlike Wayneo I do object to my taxes being wasted on a campaign that is just a face saving exercise for local Tories to make it appear they are doing something. If they wanted to do 'something' all the Tory Councillors could resign from the Conservative Party and run the local councils as an Independent Conservative' group. That would send a strong message to the Government and wouldn't cost me or other tax payers a penny.

As Demoness put the case succintly, I can only add that I didn't see many LibDems falling on their swords when their boy leader did the swift about- turn regarding tuition fees, you know, when the LibDems said they wouldn't charge then did the exact opposite as soon as they got a whiff of power.

You mean when the Lib Dems made sure that graduates will not have to pay back their fees unless they earn a good wage. No win no fee. Back to the matter in hand why is Wayneo defending the waste of our local taxes?

Oh right, hmm, how the hell does that compare with the pledge:

"I vote to oppose ANY increase in tuition fees"

??????? Anyway, regarding "waste of OUR local taxes": 1. I understand that you live in Brighton so one would assume they aren't YOUR taxes. 2. I don't read or hear of many people complaining other than those FOR HS2, the charlatans who want to seek political capital of which there is a small tincy, wincy minority. 3. In comparison to other legal fees,the spend is tiny in comparison. Equality of arms in view is money well spent though I'd rather not have to fill the boots of lawyers who I would have No time for but that's the system we have, our "democracy" has given way to a feud in the Courts i'm afraid. 4. What other option is there other than bending over and taking it?

It's going to happen so why waste further money if not to pretend local councillors are doing 'something'?

What a fantastic attitude from the LibDems, it's going to happen so we'll just bend over, my my, thank god your likes weren't in power during the Falklands.

Classy. Your getting more and more desperate with every post.

There has been an extensive consultation, our elected representatives have made a decision.

Move on and stop wasting our money.

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Yeah they might not have sunk a battleship that was not involved in any combat and was sailing away from the islands. Over 500 young men would now be still alive and living fruitful lives.

James Mates asks whether it is true that his ship posed 'a real threat' to the task force.

Captain Hector Bonzo: "Yes, I agree with that statement. I think we posed a real threat... we never had any intention of going back to shore; we were only waiting for the right moment to act."

yog wrote:

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote:

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote:

wayneo wrote:

yog wrote: Unlike Wayneo I do object to my taxes being wasted on a campaign that is just a face saving exercise for local Tories to make it appear they are doing something. If they wanted to do 'something' all the Tory Councillors could resign from the Conservative Party and run the local councils as an Independent Conservative' group. That would send a strong message to the Government and wouldn't cost me or other tax payers a penny.

As Demoness put the case succintly, I can only add that I didn't see many LibDems falling on their swords when their boy leader did the swift about- turn regarding tuition fees, you know, when the LibDems said they wouldn't charge then did the exact opposite as soon as they got a whiff of power.

You mean when the Lib Dems made sure that graduates will not have to pay back their fees unless they earn a good wage. No win no fee. Back to the matter in hand why is Wayneo defending the waste of our local taxes?

Oh right, hmm, how the hell does that compare with the pledge:

"I vote to oppose ANY increase in tuition fees"

??????? Anyway, regarding "waste of OUR local taxes": 1. I understand that you live in Brighton so one would assume they aren't YOUR taxes. 2. I don't read or hear of many people complaining other than those FOR HS2, the charlatans who want to seek political capital of which there is a small tincy, wincy minority. 3. In comparison to other legal fees,the spend is tiny in comparison. Equality of arms in view is money well spent though I'd rather not have to fill the boots of lawyers who I would have No time for but that's the system we have, our "democracy" has given way to a feud in the Courts i'm afraid. 4. What other option is there other than bending over and taking it?

It's going to happen so why waste further money if not to pretend local councillors are doing 'something'?

What a fantastic attitude from the LibDems, it's going to happen so we'll just bend over, my my, thank god your likes weren't in power during the Falklands.

Classy. Your getting more and more desperate with every post. There has been an extensive consultation, our elected representatives have made a decision. Move on and stop wasting our money.

Desperate? LOL, I think the consultation and its extent, will be for to the Courts to determine!

Wayneo -do you know what? Yog is exhibiting classic nimbyism.
I can remember he/she being so very vocal about the stadium - waste of tax payers money and all that stuff.
Clearly the stadium affected Yog's home and lifestyle - plus the fact it was being pushed by the tories who of course Yog hates.
BUT the HS2 - well why should he/she care about that?

And we are accused of being nimbys - the train line does not affect us at all but we do care about our countryside and people of Bucks.
Yog - you are a sickening hypocrite - just like the rest of your pathetic shower.

Carl@Denham wrote:
We seem to be going off on a bit of a tangent here. When I originally wrote to the Free Press I did actually say that I wasn't trying to convert anyone to the pro-HS2 cause, I have far too much respect for most of the local people who are concerned about it to think that I would be able to do so anyway. But the real worry is the amount of council taxpayers' money that may possibly be used up in a futile legal challenge to the Government. I presume the basis for this would be that the Government has somehow ignored the consultation results. But the consultation was exactly that, consultation, not a binding referendum and whatever headway is made on this issue will ultimately founder in the courts and we will all be the poorer for it. If the councils want to continue their campaign they can do so by lobbying Parliament as the legislation is debated by the Commons and Lords and goes through its committee stages. Ultimately they could field candidates at the next General Election if that is what they want to do and take this battle to the ballot box. I repeat that I would never deny anyone the right to protest against HS2 or try to stop it, we live in a democracy, I just don't want people using my/our money that is supposed to be for local services to fund that campaign.

I have no problems with my money being used in that way - no problems at all.
Far rather it be used trying to stop something so hideous and so uneconomical :)

demoness the second wrote:
Wayneo -do you know what? Yog is exhibiting classic nimbyism.
I can remember he/she being so very vocal about the stadium - waste of tax payers money and all that stuff.
Clearly the stadium affected Yog's home and lifestyle - plus the fact it was being pushed by the tories who of course Yog hates.
BUT the HS2 - well why should he/she care about that?

And we are accused of being nimbys - the train line does not affect us at all but we do care about our countryside and people of Bucks.
Yog - you are a sickening hypocrite - just like the rest of your pathetic shower.

I agree and it's like the rank hypocrisy of Labour to be attacking the bonus of the head of RBS when it was they who drew up the contract. The bottom line is that all play party politics because they know that people have short memories; most politicians who focus on party politics, often lose sight that when they play such games, the end result is that REAL people are the ones that suffer.
!
The real problem with having policy or development forced on people instead of consulting and listening to the results, is that it really becomes an issue of us and them as opposed to how can we deliver change that is mutually acceptable while appreciating cost constraints, sometimes the groundwork has gone in prior to consultation which becomes very difficult to change later or that POLICY determines a certain way forward with little consideration to those that are affected by it.
!
This was evident with the stadium and I saw a real shift in Politics that I hoped would remain, we had politicians of all colours, "you know, this is wrong and we need to stop it", there were those that agreed in principle with the development yet represented the views of their electorate, that takes considerable guts and determination, there were those who were simply opportunistic, above all i think the Council has learned consult first, work with the community to accommodate the concerns that they have then everybody can benefit.
!
Again, we have gone off on another tangent here but at least Carl presents a more refreshing perspective on the pro-camp without resorting to labels so look forward to learning more of what he has to write.

What I don't understand is how BCC can mis-appropriate money to protect the north of the county while vandalising the south at High Heavens. Isn't this "The Chilterns"? Or are we in the south second class citizens?

What I don't understand is how BCC can mis-appropriate money to protect the north of the county while vandalising the south at High Heavens. Isn't this "The Chilterns"? Or are we in the south second class citizens?

washondo wrote:
What I don't understand is how BCC can mis-appropriate money to protect the north of the county while vandalising the south at High Heavens. Isn't this "The Chilterns"? Or are we in the south second class citizens?

Is Gt Missenden and Amersham in the North of the county?

demoness the second wrote:

washondo wrote:
What I don't understand is how BCC can mis-appropriate money to protect the north of the county while vandalising the south at High Heavens. Isn't this "The Chilterns"? Or are we in the south second class citizens?

Is Gt Missenden and Amersham in the North of the county?

I couldn't agree more with you Washando, BCC have acknowledged that the waste transfer station will affect the people of Booker, Sands and Cressex, the extreme south of the county, but they are going ahead with it anyway, whilst at the same time fighting, to protect people from the effects of HS2. Doesn't everyone in the Chilterns need the same level of protection?
.
And I think that you Demoness are just 'splitting hairs'

washondo wrote:
What I don't understand is how BCC can mis-appropriate money to protect the north of the county while vandalising the south at High Heavens. Isn't this "The Chilterns"? Or are we in the south second class citizens?

Yes, actually, you do have a good point, though I think the North of the County is Wing, Stukely, Milton keynes, otherwise I agree with the sentiment.

demoness the second wrote:
Wayneo -do you know what? Yog is exhibiting classic nimbyism.
I can remember he/she being so very vocal about the stadium - waste of tax payers money and all that stuff.
Clearly the stadium affected Yog's home and lifestyle - plus the fact it was being pushed by the tories who of course Yog hates.
BUT the HS2 - well why should he/she care about that?

And we are accused of being nimbys - the train line does not affect us at all but we do care about our countryside and people of Bucks.
Yog - you are a sickening hypocrite - just like the rest of your pathetic shower.

I don't hate anyone just because of their politics.

I don't live near the stadium.

Just because someone doesn't agree with the blog police on here does not make them a hypocrite.

Wayneo is right to say that the Government has lost in the courts, but I can't see it on this one because at the end of the day this is a political argument not a legal one. What you have got is a massive infrastructure project, like the motorways, the channel tunnel, nuclear power stations etc and if our national politicians decide to go ahead and enact the legislation and they succeed in getting it through Parliament, then it happens or at least they have the authority to make it happen.
To stop anything like this you have to change the politicians' minds or replace them with other politicians, and Heathrow 3rd Runway is a classic example of this happening, so it can be done. In fact if you go back to Victorian times any railway had to get its Act before it could go ahead and many proposals foundered because they failed to make it through the parliamentary process due to objections, so nothing new really. In this case I admit the objectors will have an uphill struggle because of the broad support for HS2 from mainstream politicians but then you have to ask yourself just why that is - can they all be wrong?
If the anti-HS2 councils take the court action route the only winners will be m'learned friends and the numerous consultants who will be called in to draft "expert" evidence (like they were for the councils' submission to the Transport Select Committee to no great effect). I may be wrong of course, but over the last 18 months whenever I told people that I thought HS2 would get the green light because it was a manifesto pledge (Tory & Lib Dem) and the PM and the coalition transport team were committed to it people laughed at me, but they're not laughing now. So disagree with me by all means and let's carry on with this important debate, but at least give me credit for knowing something about what I am talking about.
And would anyone like to open a new thread about the Belgrano? Fascinating subject, but I struggle to see the connection with Bucks...

On the contrary Carl, the fact that it is a political decision makes it more likely that legality has given way to political expediency. Where I do agree with you, is that unfortunately it is the legal establishment who once again, are likely to benefit, a situation that could be avoided in the first place by working with local people and Councils from the start, rather than enforcing their will later, unfortunately, in this case, it is a necessity in order to establish whether the Government have followed the law according to Parliament's will.

The issue is not whether you are pro kor anti HS2. The issue is whether Martin Tett is spending OUR money wisely. I would argue that he is not. There is no chance of stopping this project, so this is like burning fifty pound notes. Idiotic.

IanBartlett wrote:
The issue is not whether you are pro kor anti HS2. The issue is whether Martin Tett is spending OUR money wisely. I would argue that he is not. There is no chance of stopping this project, so this is like burning fifty pound notes. Idiotic.

Of course it matters, for the most part, antis will be more inclined to see the legal challenge whereas I haven't come across any pro HS2 who are in favour.

Hi Wayneo.
Still at odds with you over the legal challenge. Give me one example where a Government has been stopped by the courts from laying a Bill before Parliament for a manifesto committment. I don't know of one.
BUT I agree 100% that there should have been more local input earlier in the planning stages. In fact before the detailed route is drawn up there is an engagement process which does involve senior planners from the local authorities talking to Government. They do the same thing with motorways. So when these consultations were going on where were our local elected representatives? It is my impression that they were not taking the thing too seriously as a Labour Government was in power at the time and its days were clearly numbered. Trouble was that they thought Maggie was still leading the Tories. She would have closed all the railways and turned them into roads given half the chance, but the Conservatives have moved on a long way since then and as a railwayman I have to say full credit to them. So when the coalition carried on with the HS2 project it caught the councils right on the hop and now they want us to shell out tens and hundreds of thousands to pay for a forlorn rearguard action. It's not on.

I'm not sure that you understand the Parliamentary process or the Jurisdiction of the Courts. Firstly a manifesto pledge isn't legally binding, secondly, any member can put forward a Bill which Parliament will debate then agree upon or throw out, it can still be returned back to the House from the Lords, it is not the Court's jurisdiction to determine policy but to interpret and ensure that the law is being followed to that which Parliament intended.
!
A Bill that fulfils a manifesto promise would still need to be debated, ratified then become law, it would then also be subject to the various constraints and statutes from other laws and just because there's a Bill or commitment to a particular project, does not mean that legislation (planning laws, consultations etc), doesn't have to be followed.
!
As for failed manifesto promises, there have been many and for a variety of reasons, one only has to look at this Government and of the previous' track record to see that.

I think I understand the process OK. I know a manifesto pledge is not legally binding and just because a Bill is laid before Parliament does not mean it will be passed. It could be defeated or be withdrawn. But just name me the court case where someone actually stopped any Government from at least getting as far as presenting a Bill for something it wanted to do? This is what the councils in 51m seem to think they can achieve and I don't think there is a precedent.

I think it is worth remembering that the vast majority of MPs support HS2 and when Justine Greening held a meeting with MPs to discuss it - only 10 spoke against it; the 21.11.11 notes of the meeting can be found on the DfT website.

Windsorian wrote:
I think it is worth remembering that the vast majority of MPs support HS2 and when Justine Greening held a meeting with MPs to discuss it - only 10 spoke against it; the 21.11.11 notes of the meeting can be found on the DfT website.

This is an excellent point and highlights why I say Tett is wasting OUR money (not his, you notice). The man is on an egotists dream...tv, newspapers, twitter...and we're paying his salary, plus the campaign cost, plus the staff cost, plus the opportunity cost of using this money for a futile campaign. He needs to be removed from office.

Carl@Denham wrote:
I think I understand the process OK. I know a manifesto pledge is not legally binding and just because a Bill is laid before Parliament does not mean it will be passed. It could be defeated or be withdrawn. But just name me the court case where someone actually stopped any Government from at least getting as far as presenting a Bill for something it wanted to do? This is what the councils in 51m seem to think they can achieve and I don't think there is a precedent.

I don't see why you think a Court would be involved in presenting a Bill before Parliament,The whole purpose of Parliament is to scrutinise and debate whether the Bill being put forward is 1.Right, 2. Compatible with Domestic legislation and 3. Whether the Bill being put forward is compatible with European/Internation
al laws and treaties.
!
A Court would not be involved in the drafting of a Bill, instead it would be involved were the Council for example, call into question the processes or procedures that are attributable to existing legislation, have been followed as Parliament intended, that requires clarification in the Courts.

IanBartlett wrote:

Windsorian wrote:
I think it is worth remembering that the vast majority of MPs support HS2 and when Justine Greening held a meeting with MPs to discuss it - only 10 spoke against it; the 21.11.11 notes of the meeting can be found on the DfT website.

This is an excellent point and highlights why I say Tett is wasting OUR money (not his, you notice). The man is on an egotists dream...tv, newspapers, twitter...and we're paying his salary, plus the campaign cost, plus the staff cost, plus the opportunity cost of using this money for a futile campaign. He needs to be removed from office.

Why is he wasting OUR money? I'm not sure of the relevance that because 10 MPs people speak out, that is somehow indicative of any legal challenge being futile.

wayneo wrote:

IanBartlett wrote:

Windsorian wrote: I think it is worth remembering that the vast majority of MPs support HS2 and when Justine Greening held a meeting with MPs to discuss it - only 10 spoke against it; the 21.11.11 notes of the meeting can be found on the DfT website.

This is an excellent point and highlights why I say Tett is wasting OUR money (not his, you notice). The man is on an egotists dream...tv, newspapers, twitter...and we're paying his salary, plus the campaign cost, plus the staff cost, plus the opportunity cost of using this money for a futile campaign. He needs to be removed from office.

Why is he wasting OUR money? I'm not sure of the relevance that because 10 MPs people speak out, that is somehow indicative of any legal challenge being futile.

Just 10 MPs out of 650 !!!

Windsorian wrote:

wayneo wrote:

IanBartlett wrote:

Windsorian wrote: I think it is worth remembering that the vast majority of MPs support HS2 and when Justine Greening held a meeting with MPs to discuss it - only 10 spoke against it; the 21.11.11 notes of the meeting can be found on the DfT website.

This is an excellent point and highlights why I say Tett is wasting OUR money (not his, you notice). The man is on an egotists dream...tv, newspapers, twitter...and we're paying his salary, plus the campaign cost, plus the staff cost, plus the opportunity cost of using this money for a futile campaign. He needs to be removed from office.

Why is he wasting OUR money? I'm not sure of the relevance that because 10 MPs people speak out, that is somehow indicative of any legal challenge being futile.

Just 10 MPs out of 650 !!!

Doesn't mean jack, not all MPs will time to speak, how many spoke in favour?

wayneo wrote:

IanBartlett wrote:

Windsorian wrote: I think it is worth remembering that the vast majority of MPs support HS2 and when Justine Greening held a meeting with MPs to discuss it - only 10 spoke against it; the 21.11.11 notes of the meeting can be found on the DfT website.

This is an excellent point and highlights why I say Tett is wasting OUR money (not his, you notice). The man is on an egotists dream...tv, newspapers, twitter...and we're paying his salary, plus the campaign cost, plus the staff cost, plus the opportunity cost of using this money for a futile campaign. He needs to be removed from office.

Why is he wasting OUR money? I'm not sure of the relevance that because 10 MPs people speak out, that is somehow indicative of any legal challenge being futile.

I don't think he is wasting OUR money. Other than a couple of letters in the BFP,I don't see many protests about the Council exploring and takjing legal action. As I said, i'm not directly affected, but I don't see why those that could be affected shouldn't have a local body to ensure that the Government has gone about its business lawfully; if it's as watertight as you seem to imply, then you have nothing to fear. At the the costs will be shared between 51 otherCouncils, which I might add, carry more elected persons than of in Westminster.

Either way, will someone just make a decision as to what is happening, as those horrendous hoardings supported by scaffolding that are littering the Chilterns are as much an eyesore as anything else.

deecee01 wrote:
Either way, will someone just make a decision as to what is happening, as those horrendous hoardings supported by scaffolding that are littering the Chilterns are as much an eyesore as anything else.

Quite agree but many of them depict where the line will cross so the next time you're out and you see one of those boardings, look at the surrounding Countryside then imagine a ruddy great train-track going through it.

UNfortunately the fuller issue about HS2 is being totally lost.

1] It should have been connected directly to HS1 and then everyone could then go straight across the Channel in it.

2] It ought to have gone to Heathrow as well.

3] We still lack a credible rail service from Reading directly to Heathrow (a Heathrow Express 2 I suggest.)

4] The man in City Hall London under the cahoots of Halcrow Group and Richard Rogers is proposing another airport for London to which no one wants to go to for it will not be connected to anything and thatwill cost the country £50 Billion at least.

5] Better still we have so many RAF airports in the country that RAF Brize Norton would make the far better Regional Airport for Central Soukern England and it is so accessible.

Yes I have departed from the tracked conversation and I have friends who live near Brize Norton and they think this idea is wonderful.

I'm not too keen on Boris Island either.

wayneo wrote:

Carl@Denham wrote: I think I understand the process OK. I know a manifesto pledge is not legally binding and just because a Bill is laid before Parliament does not mean it will be passed. It could be defeated or be withdrawn. But just name me the court case where someone actually stopped any Government from at least getting as far as presenting a Bill for something it wanted to do? This is what the councils in 51m seem to think they can achieve and I don't think there is a precedent.

I don't see why you think a Court would be involved in presenting a Bill before Parliament,The whole purpose of Parliament is to scrutinise and debate whether the Bill being put forward is 1.Right, 2. Compatible with Domestic legislation and 3. Whether the Bill being put forward is compatible with European/Internation al laws and treaties. ! A Court would not be involved in the drafting of a Bill, instead it would be involved were the Council for example, call into question the processes or procedures that are attributable to existing legislation, have been followed as Parliament intended, that requires clarification in the Courts.

Look, we're getting a bit lost on this one. I know courts don't frame legislation, it is Mr Tett that thinks they do. He thinks he can go to court and stop the Government laying a Bill before Parliament for something that he doesn't like. If you could do such a thing it would have been done before. The unions would have tried to block industrial relations reform that way, or the field sports lobby would have tried to stop the Hunting Bill by court action.
The fact is it can't be done and we are going to see a lot of our money go down the drain by the time 51m concede defeat.

wayneo wrote:

Carl@Denham wrote: I think I understand the process OK. I know a manifesto pledge is not legally binding and just because a Bill is laid before Parliament does not mean it will be passed. It could be defeated or be withdrawn. But just name me the court case where someone actually stopped any Government from at least getting as far as presenting a Bill for something it wanted to do? This is what the councils in 51m seem to think they can achieve and I don't think there is a precedent.

I don't see why you think a Court would be involved in presenting a Bill before Parliament,The whole purpose of Parliament is to scrutinise and debate whether the Bill being put forward is 1.Right, 2. Compatible with Domestic legislation and 3. Whether the Bill being put forward is compatible with European/Internation al laws and treaties. ! A Court would not be involved in the drafting of a Bill, instead it would be involved were the Council for example, call into question the processes or procedures that are attributable to existing legislation, have been followed as Parliament intended, that requires clarification in the Courts.

Look, we're getting a bit lost on this one. I know courts don't frame legislation, it is Mr Tett that thinks they do. He thinks he can go to court and stop the Government laying a Bill before Parliament for something that he doesn't like. If you could do such a thing it would have been done before. The unions would have tried to block industrial relations reform that way, or the field sports lobby would have tried to stop the Hunting Bill by court action.
The fact is it can't be done and we are going to see a lot of our money go down the drain by the time 51m concede defeat.

Carl@Denham wrote:

wayneo wrote:

Carl@Denham wrote: I think I understand the process OK. I know a manifesto pledge is not legally binding and just because a Bill is laid before Parliament does not mean it will be passed. It could be defeated or be withdrawn. But just name me the court case where someone actually stopped any Government from at least getting as far as presenting a Bill for something it wanted to do? This is what the councils in 51m seem to think they can achieve and I don't think there is a precedent.

I don't see why you think a Court would be involved in presenting a Bill before Parliament,The whole purpose of Parliament is to scrutinise and debate whether the Bill being put forward is 1.Right, 2. Compatible with Domestic legislation and 3. Whether the Bill being put forward is compatible with European/Internation al laws and treaties. ! A Court would not be involved in the drafting of a Bill, instead it would be involved were the Council for example, call into question the processes or procedures that are attributable to existing legislation, have been followed as Parliament intended, that requires clarification in the Courts.

Look, we're getting a bit lost on this one. I know courts don't frame legislation, it is Mr Tett that thinks they do. He thinks he can go to court and stop the Government laying a Bill before Parliament for something that he doesn't like. If you could do such a thing it would have been done before. The unions would have tried to block industrial relations reform that way, or the field sports lobby would have tried to stop the Hunting Bill by court action.
The fact is it can't be done and we are going to see a lot of our money go down the drain by the time 51m concede defeat.

As I said, i don't think that he's trying to do that at all, even if Mr Tett did think like that, even a law student would be able to set him right but that's not what he is doing.

He wrote to me yesterday saying that a legal challenge by 51m was still not ruled out. So what sort of a legal challenge is it then if it's not about stopping the Government putting the HS2 Bill before Parliament? Because a lot of people think that is indeed what the legal challenge is all about and I have heard some of the protest groups are chipping in on that basis - I may be wrong, perhaps someone can put us right on that point?
Incidentally I am apparently one of only two people who have ever contacted Mr Tett to challenge his views. It's mtett@buckscc.gov.uk if anyone's interested.

Carl@Denham wrote:
He wrote to me yesterday saying that a legal challenge by 51m was still not ruled out. So what sort of a legal challenge is it then if it's not about stopping the Government putting the HS2 Bill before Parliament? Because a lot of people think that is indeed what the legal challenge is all about and I have heard some of the protest groups are chipping in on that basis - I may be wrong, perhaps someone can put us right on that point?
Incidentally I am apparently one of only two people who have ever contacted Mr Tett to challenge his views. It's mtett@buckscc.gov.uk if anyone's interested.

Again, you confirm my view that there is a considerable amount of hearsay concerning HS2 (from either side of the fence). Much of the blame for that is squarely on the Government for not providing sufficient detail in the first place.
!
As for the legal challenge, it is evident that the 51m group are considering their options and are still in the process of consulting with their legal team, this is not something that happens over night but will have to happen within three months of the date of the decision, any challenge would not be to merely prevent a Bill being put before Parliament for the reasons already mentioned above.

Good for Carl. I object very strongly to my expensive council taxes being used as part of the political Anti HS2 campaign. If objectors want to democratically oppose something then they should pay for it - personally. It is totally wrong to use council taxes to fund a campaign. Ask for voluntary contributions by all means but no misuse of general taxes that I have paid for education, housing, libraries, police/fire etc etc.

A very costly blunder. Also shame on Cheryl Gillan for her conduct in recent months in particular. She represents so much of what is wrong when politicians act so badly. Shabby to say the least. Hope she's not elected next time. She'll probably step down anyway before then.

piran wrote:
Good for Carl. I object very strongly to my expensive council taxes being used as part of the political Anti HS2 campaign. If objectors want to democratically oppose something then they should pay for it - personally. It is totally wrong to use council taxes to fund a campaign. Ask for voluntary contributions by all means but no misuse of general taxes that I have paid for education, housing, libraries, police/fire etc etc.

And you don't think the Police or the NHS p!ss our money up against a wall in legal fees then? At least this aims to protect people from a development rather than hide neglect of duty or simply bad behaviour.

wayneo wrote:

piran wrote:
Good for Carl. I object very strongly to my expensive council taxes being used as part of the political Anti HS2 campaign. If objectors want to democratically oppose something then they should pay for it - personally. It is totally wrong to use council taxes to fund a campaign. Ask for voluntary contributions by all means but no misuse of general taxes that I have paid for education, housing, libraries, police/fire etc etc.

And you don't think the Police or the NHS p!ss our money up against a wall in legal fees then? At least this aims to protect people from a development rather than hide neglect of duty or simply bad behaviour.

And if you want to fight HS2 I suggest you give a voluntary donation and do not expect my hard-earned council taxes to pay for a political campaign. And yes I object to wasted money in all the Public Sector. But no campaign money from WDC or Bucks CC should be used to support a vocal minority. You pay if you like but do not expect my money to be wasted on a political campaign

£800 million is being spent in this parliament alone to push through HS2. I feel that as this is a one time only opportunity to protect our environment the Bucks money is well spent opposing HS2.

Missenden wrote:
£800 million is being spent in this parliament alone to push through HS2. I feel that as this is a one time only opportunity to protect our environment the Bucks money is well spent opposing HS2.

But don't not use my council taxes to pay for your anti-HS2 camapign. Pay for it yourself.

piran wrote:

Missenden wrote:
£800 million is being spent in this parliament alone to push through HS2. I feel that as this is a one time only opportunity to protect our environment the Bucks money is well spent opposing HS2.

But don't not use my council taxes to pay for your anti-HS2 camapign. Pay for it yourself.

I guess you won't want Councils fighting any breach,development or planning application at all then, however damaging it might be? I know, let's just have a free-for-all, where developers can build where and what they like without worrying about any legal challenge whatsoever, all in the name of progress and in the name of jobs and the economy, let's do that and then see what happens to this Country, as that happened more recently when Governments thought they could build an entire economy on House building.
!
I had a brief look for cases that the Government had lost against Councils, two (but not limited to), are below:
!
1.Building Schools for Future - Councils won
2.2M Group against Heathrow expansion - Councils win
!
The Government doesn't always get what it wants, the same as any developer.

piran wrote:

Missenden wrote:
£800 million is being spent in this parliament alone to push through HS2. I feel that as this is a one time only opportunity to protect our environment the Bucks money is well spent opposing HS2.

But don't not use my council taxes to pay for your anti-HS2 camapign. Pay for it yourself.

With respect Piran, one could also use your example, that they do not wish for their Income tax to pay for a railway that will only benefit those living within immediate vicinity of HS2's interchanges.

This debate about those that sit in leafy South Buckinghamshire being afraid of developments is the whole crux of the High Speed Rail Project 2 debate and nothing to do with whether it is good for the Whole Country or otherwise. The residents in the leafy South Buckinghamshire area should realise that when any development in infrastructure occurred, regardless of when, caused a major stir in the public and with land owners. This debate now would have occurred in the period of the development of the Steam Railways in the 19th Century and I dare suggest that had anyone been around then there would have been as much disquiet and anger and attempts to gain compensation for amenity loss (which in those days would have been from the Landed Gentry more than the General Public) and the parallels seen now would have been evident.

There is of course the issue here that this HS2 debate is seen as being one of the Wealthy Leafy South fighting against a benefit for the Northern part of the Country. This though is not the case for the development is for the betterment of the whole country.

In France and Spain where there is a postive attitude to High Speed Rail apart fromthe planning laws being different the acceptance of these rail infrastructure lines is very favourable. What people seem to have missed in this current issue here is the really obvious one and that even though the CTRL (Channel Tunnel Rail Link) or HS1 has now been in service for some time the "so-called" blot on the landscape has been all but gone. The rail link does not produce massive quantities of noise. I have lived within 200 metres of it and it is acceptable. Some friends of mine who live closer still have accepted it. They would of course rather see this style of development than another Motorway carrying hordes of cars day in and day out to the frries and that is noted. They also make it pretty clear that the CTRL/HS1 is a better option than any airport expansion proposal - such as that proffered for the Lord Rogers-Halcrow-Boris Johnson folly in the Thames Estuary for in that alone - should it ever have got approval - the road and rail links would have been a serious issue.

It is important to note still - and it is something that has been raised tiome and time again - that this HS2 Rail Link does not do what it ought to do. One of the claims being made about its potential use is to link London to the North of the Country by an efficient and high speed rail link. The proposed route does not do that, it fails to address the fact that it doesnot seem to notice Newcastle-Upon-Tyne or the East Coast at all! To my mind there was an opportunity to address this in a real programme of joined up thinking in transport and that would have been to use the HS2 Rail System to be fully linked to the spine of England with the network following what is known as being "closer to" the original Great Central Railway Line and then to have spurs going to the East and West to reach the whole of the country north of Leicester. This link should then have been connected around London so that on the East it would pass under the Thames to join up with the CTRL/HS1 and to the West via Heathrow-Gatwick and then to the CTRL/HS1 at or near where it goes across (under) the Channel. We had an opportunity to do this a few years ago when there was a hosy opf objecters to such a proposal from the Leafy South Western extent of the Stockbroking area around the Reigate Dorking Leatherhead Esher Hounslow Poyle-Datchet Denham and Gerards Cross-Beaconsfield-H
igh Wycombe and Denhamd Aylesbury side to the Great Central Path made their feelimgs known then. So here we are 10 to 16 years later with another brooding cacophany of people objecting to something which is a second best option that will cost whatever it will cost.

Returning to the costs of the HS2 link, I would also suggest that if at this time you think that the estimates to construct something 15 years before it is finalyy built can be contained within a realistic budget then think again. Constyruction companies within the UK are poor masters at building to budget estimates, just look at the costs associated with any major programme these days. It is wholly unfair for people today pontificating on what they think should be the costs to build this HS2 ro Manchester when traditional and historical inflation rates have always been over 2%, Fifteen years at 2% means that a project estimated today at £20 Billion would cost £26 Billion by the time it was built. What a pity we do not have Turkish or Korean Contractors employed to build the projects!

I still object to the costs being illegally apportioned by the County and District Councils to the legal challenge. This is not legal.

Perhaps Carol, it is known as leafy Bucks rather than the Concrete jungle of London,Hounslow, Middlesex because a majority of those that reside here want it to remain that way. If you lived less than 200metres away from HS1 and deemed it acceptable, why did you move and to where? As for Kent, there has been a massive development programme, Kings Hill, Hawkinge being but two, where whole towns have grown, despite all this, we are in an economic mess not seen since the 1930s and of which will likely get much worse.
!
As for costs being "illegally apportioned by the County can District Councils to the legal challenge not being legal, I expect you will be able to indicate that that is so.

Some interesting points, but I think the plans for through running from HS2 to the North East and Scotland will mean that most of the North will benefit, the main centres anyway.

However, I am informed by my MP (and he is the Attorney General, so he should know) that the councils are not breaking the law in funding 51m. However, imagine if a group of Northern Labour councils got together to campaign against Welfare Reform and the benefits cap. They could call themselves "26K" (after the £26,000 benefits limit). And just suppose they started pouring council tax payers' money into the campaign. I think that the Government would take a very dim view of it, and we would hear all those old arguments about propaganda on the rates. But Mr Tett and his friends at 51m seem to be getting away with it scot-free, and meanwhile we are the losers.

CarolHorner wrote:
This debate about those that sit in leafy South Buckinghamshire being afraid of developments is the whole crux of the High Speed Rail Project 2 debate and nothing to do with whether it is good for the Whole Country or otherwise. The residents in the leafy South Buckinghamshire area should realise that when any development in infrastructure occurred, regardless of when, caused a major stir in the public and with land owners. This debate now would have occurred in the period of the development of the Steam Railways in the 19th Century and I dare suggest that had anyone been around then there would have been as much disquiet and anger and attempts to gain compensation for amenity loss (which in those days would have been from the Landed Gentry more than the General Public) and the parallels seen now would have been evident.

There is of course the issue here that this HS2 debate is seen as being one of the Wealthy Leafy South fighting against a benefit for the Northern part of the Country. This though is not the case for the development is for the betterment of the whole country.

In France and Spain where there is a postive attitude to High Speed Rail apart fromthe planning laws being different the acceptance of these rail infrastructure lines is very favourable. What people seem to have missed in this current issue here is the really obvious one and that even though the CTRL (Channel Tunnel Rail Link) or HS1 has now been in service for some time the "so-called" blot on the landscape has been all but gone. The rail link does not produce massive quantities of noise. I have lived within 200 metres of it and it is acceptable. Some friends of mine who live closer still have accepted it. They would of course rather see this style of development than another Motorway carrying hordes of cars day in and day out to the frries and that is noted. They also make it pretty clear that the CTRL/HS1 is a better option than any airport expansion proposal - such as that proffered for the Lord Rogers-Halcrow-Boris Johnson folly in the Thames Estuary for in that alone - should it ever have got approval - the road and rail links would have been a serious issue.

It is important to note still - and it is something that has been raised tiome and time again - that this HS2 Rail Link does not do what it ought to do. One of the claims being made about its potential use is to link London to the North of the Country by an efficient and high speed rail link. The proposed route does not do that, it fails to address the fact that it doesnot seem to notice Newcastle-Upon-Tyne or the East Coast at all! To my mind there was an opportunity to address this in a real programme of joined up thinking in transport and that would have been to use the HS2 Rail System to be fully linked to the spine of England with the network following what is known as being "closer to" the original Great Central Railway Line and then to have spurs going to the East and West to reach the whole of the country north of Leicester. This link should then have been connected around London so that on the East it would pass under the Thames to join up with the CTRL/HS1 and to the West via Heathrow-Gatwick and then to the CTRL/HS1 at or near where it goes across (under) the Channel. We had an opportunity to do this a few years ago when there was a hosy opf objecters to such a proposal from the Leafy South Western extent of the Stockbroking area around the Reigate Dorking Leatherhead Esher Hounslow Poyle-Datchet Denham and Gerards Cross-Beaconsfield-H

igh Wycombe and Denhamd Aylesbury side to the Great Central Path made their feelimgs known then. So here we are 10 to 16 years later with another brooding cacophany of people objecting to something which is a second best option that will cost whatever it will cost.

Returning to the costs of the HS2 link, I would also suggest that if at this time you think that the estimates to construct something 15 years before it is finalyy built can be contained within a realistic budget then think again. Constyruction companies within the UK are poor masters at building to budget estimates, just look at the costs associated with any major programme these days. It is wholly unfair for people today pontificating on what they think should be the costs to build this HS2 ro Manchester when traditional and historical inflation rates have always been over 2%, Fifteen years at 2% means that a project estimated today at £20 Billion would cost £26 Billion by the time it was built. What a pity we do not have Turkish or Korean Contractors employed to build the projects!

I still object to the costs being illegally apportioned by the County and District Councils to the legal challenge. This is not legal.

Well said. My point exactly. I want my council taxes put into education, libraries etc NOT political fights against HS2 for a very selfish, well-off vocal minority. HS2 will go ahead despite the Buckinghamshire whingers who just think it's about saving a few minutes time for businessmen travelling to Birmingham against trees! They obviously do not read anything but their own propoganda.

It is about national infrastructure, future capacity and investing for our children and grandchildren. I wish the anti HS2 were not so blinkered or lacking in vision.

piran wrote:

CarolHorner wrote:
This debate about those that sit in leafy South Buckinghamshire being afraid of developments is the whole crux of the High Speed Rail Project 2 debate and nothing to do with whether it is good for the Whole Country or otherwise. The residents in the leafy South Buckinghamshire area should realise that when any development in infrastructure occurred, regardless of when, caused a major stir in the public and with land owners. This debate now would have occurred in the period of the development of the Steam Railways in the 19th Century and I dare suggest that had anyone been around then there would have been as much disquiet and anger and attempts to gain compensation for amenity loss (which in those days would have been from the Landed Gentry more than the General Public) and the parallels seen now would have been evident.

There is of course the issue here that this HS2 debate is seen as being one of the Wealthy Leafy South fighting against a benefit for the Northern part of the Country. This though is not the case for the development is for the betterment of the whole country.

In France and Spain where there is a postive attitude to High Speed Rail apart fromthe planning laws being different the acceptance of these rail infrastructure lines is very favourable. What people seem to have missed in this current issue here is the really obvious one and that even though the CTRL (Channel Tunnel Rail Link) or HS1 has now been in service for some time the "so-called" blot on the landscape has been all but gone. The rail link does not produce massive quantities of noise. I have lived within 200 metres of it and it is acceptable. Some friends of mine who live closer still have accepted it. They would of course rather see this style of development than another Motorway carrying hordes of cars day in and day out to the frries and that is noted. They also make it pretty clear that the CTRL/HS1 is a better option than any airport expansion proposal - such as that proffered for the Lord Rogers-Halcrow-Boris Johnson folly in the Thames Estuary for in that alone - should it ever have got approval - the road and rail links would have been a serious issue.

It is important to note still - and it is something that has been raised tiome and time again - that this HS2 Rail Link does not do what it ought to do. One of the claims being made about its potential use is to link London to the North of the Country by an efficient and high speed rail link. The proposed route does not do that, it fails to address the fact that it doesnot seem to notice Newcastle-Upon-Tyne or the East Coast at all! To my mind there was an opportunity to address this in a real programme of joined up thinking in transport and that would have been to use the HS2 Rail System to be fully linked to the spine of England with the network following what is known as being "closer to" the original Great Central Railway Line and then to have spurs going to the East and West to reach the whole of the country north of Leicester. This link should then have been connected around London so that on the East it would pass under the Thames to join up with the CTRL/HS1 and to the West via Heathrow-Gatwick and then to the CTRL/HS1 at or near where it goes across (under) the Channel. We had an opportunity to do this a few years ago when there was a hosy opf objecters to such a proposal from the Leafy South Western extent of the Stockbroking area around the Reigate Dorking Leatherhead Esher Hounslow Poyle-Datchet Denham and Gerards Cross-Beaconsfield-H


igh Wycombe and Denhamd Aylesbury side to the Great Central Path made their feelimgs known then. So here we are 10 to 16 years later with another brooding cacophany of people objecting to something which is a second best option that will cost whatever it will cost.

Returning to the costs of the HS2 link, I would also suggest that if at this time you think that the estimates to construct something 15 years before it is finalyy built can be contained within a realistic budget then think again. Constyruction companies within the UK are poor masters at building to budget estimates, just look at the costs associated with any major programme these days. It is wholly unfair for people today pontificating on what they think should be the costs to build this HS2 ro Manchester when traditional and historical inflation rates have always been over 2%, Fifteen years at 2% means that a project estimated today at £20 Billion would cost £26 Billion by the time it was built. What a pity we do not have Turkish or Korean Contractors employed to build the projects!

I still object to the costs being illegally apportioned by the County and District Councils to the legal challenge. This is not legal.

Well said. My point exactly. I want my council taxes put into education, libraries etc NOT political fights against HS2 for a very selfish, well-off vocal minority. HS2 will go ahead despite the Buckinghamshire whingers who just think it's about saving a few minutes time for businessmen travelling to Birmingham against trees! They obviously do not read anything but their own propoganda.

It is about national infrastructure, future capacity and investing for our children and grandchildren. I wish the anti HS2 were not so blinkered or lacking in vision.

Investing for our Children and Grandchildren???? while very emotive, I'm not so sure that they would prefer a lump of concrete and steel over the Chiltern Hills.
!
If it were about National infrastructure, how do you propose the existing infrastructure will be funded while much of the resource go towards funding the new? investment is one thing, sustainability is another.

Carl@Denham wrote:
Some interesting points, but I think the plans for through running from HS2 to the North East and Scotland will mean that most of the North will benefit, the main centres anyway.

However, I am informed by my MP (and he is the Attorney General, so he should know) that the councils are not breaking the law in funding 51m. However, imagine if a group of Northern Labour councils got together to campaign against Welfare Reform and the benefits cap. They could call themselves "26K" (after the £26,000 benefits limit). And just suppose they started pouring council tax payers' money into the campaign. I think that the Government would take a very dim view of it, and we would hear all those old arguments about propaganda on the rates. But Mr Tett and his friends at 51m seem to be getting away with it scot-free, and meanwhile we are the losers.

Despite being a supporter of the 26k cap, I think if the Government has acted unlawfully then they should be challenged, often though, such challenges are born from poor legal opinion or advice, a carefree attitude to the law and of complacency. Again, unless one is a man-of-straw with no resources, taking on the Government is both costly and out of reach for most people; the fact that the resources of a Council were required highlights just how out-of-reach Justice has become for most people, there certainly the equality of arms that is a right of every citizen of this Country.
!
People should really do some research as to how much Council Tax is spent on lawyers each year by Councils, whether it is trying to prevent members of the public from achieving their rights under the Freedom of Information, even to the extent of spending thousands rather than having make a simple apology for a misdeed; those for HS2, if the Government have acted according to the laws of Parliament and now unfortunately the EU, then they will have nothing to fear.

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Yeah they might not have sunk a battleship that was not involved in any combat and was sailing away from the islands. Over 500 young men would now be still alive and living fruitful lives.

Rubbish - that ship was combat ready and was not sailing away, she was moving backwards and forwards to our Total Exclusion Zone. Recent secret intelligence has shown she was NOT steaming away. Are you trying to claim that warship was on a peaceful mission!!!
Sinking her was right as she was a threat to our Naval forces. By doing this the Argentine navy did not venture out of port therefore saving many more lives!

piran wrote:

tom.marlow2 wrote:
Yeah they might not have sunk a battleship that was not involved in any combat and was sailing away from the islands. Over 500 young men would now be still alive and living fruitful lives.

Rubbish - that ship was combat ready and was not sailing away, she was moving backwards and forwards to our Total Exclusion Zone. Recent secret intelligence has shown she was NOT steaming away. Are you trying to claim that warship was on a peaceful mission!!!
Sinking her was right as she was a threat to our Naval forces. By doing this the Argentine navy did not venture out of port therefore saving many more lives!

Quite agree, well said.