How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

I just can't fathom how you can make an argument that one countries taxpayers should be paying for an infrastructure project in another country that doesn't have an inch of it inside their country?

Otherwise you can argue England taxpayers should be paying for the South Wales metro, the severn bridge (which was built for free in-leu of a toll rather than the UK government investing.) It never ends.

Why are the Welsh such a pushover as a nation? I can't imagine that happening with in any other country in the world let alone Scotland.

Even the Welsh conservatives think it's a joke. 5 billion pounds+ is a huge amount of money that is being basically robbed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-61495454

Surely there is a petition against this sh1t?

How dare the UK government award over £200m to 11 different Welsh projects, just a couple of months ago from the levelling up fund.
It includes £50m towards the Cardiff Crossrail project.
You'd better let those English taxpayers know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bloop

How dare the UK government award over £200m to 11 different Welsh projects, just a couple of months ago from the levelling up fund.
It includes £50m towards the Cardiff Crossrail project.
You'd better let those English taxpayers know.

---

I can't tell if this a joke.

Just in case you're serious, that is absolutely peanuts compared to the money Wales lost from exiting the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

I can't tell if this a joke.

Just in case you're serious, that is absolutely peanuts compared to the money Wales lost from exiting the EU.

---

Not a joke (and I'm not a supporter of them either incase you're wondering).
I'm fully aware that it's peanuts, and that we haven't received our fair share of HS2 money, but just for the sake of balance for the OPs point, thought it was worth mentioning. With a general election on the horizon, no doubt, there'll be a few more sweeteners coming this side of the border in the next year or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wozza16

I just can't fathom how you can make an argument that one countries taxpayers should be paying for an infrastructure project in another country that doesn't have an inch of it inside their country?

Otherwise you can argue England taxpayers should be paying for the South Wales metro, the severn bridge (which was built for free in-leu of a toll rather than the UK government investing.) It never ends.

Why are the Welsh such a pushover as a nation? I can't imagine that happening with in any other country in the world let alone Scotland.

Even the Welsh conservatives think it's a joke. 5 billion pounds+ is a huge amount of money that is being basically robbed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-61495454

Surely there is a petition against this sh1t?

---

Because we live in the UK .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dml1954

Because we live in the UK .

---

Exactly DML. It's not often I agree with you but England is not some foreign country. It's part of our UK.

if Wales got 5bn of infrastructure spending that would be absolutely massive -

I agree, Wales should get it's share of funding, but it has to be said that more public money is spent per head in Wales than in England, so the 'tax payer' argument doesn't wash.

The argument here (which is true) is that people from North Wales will benefit as anyone going from Wrexham, Bangor et al will get to London quicker as a result. Like I said, that is demonstrably true, but I still think Wales should get it's share of HS2 funding, not least because it's politically sensible to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

I can't tell if this a joke.

Just in case you're serious, that is absolutely peanuts compared to the money Wales lost from exiting the EU.

---

I'll explain this in simple terms. The UK is in the UK and pays , say £50 billion. It then gets back, say £25 bilion. All that 'EU funding' for pointless projects was actually us receiving half our money back. The 'EU' doesn't have one single euro - it's all contributions from the taxpayers of member states..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

I'll explain this in simple terms. The UK is in the UK and pays , say £50 billion. It then gets back, say £25 bilion. All that 'EU funding' for pointless projects was actually us receiving half our money back. The 'EU' doesn't have one single euro - it's all contributions from the taxpayers of member states..

---

on the other hand membership of the EU was worth a lot more than the membership fee to the UK economy.

Also at least the money we got back was occasionally spent on infrastructure projects in Wales, unlike Westminster who will always spend it in the South East

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I agree, Wales should get it's share of funding, but it has to be said that more public money is spent per head in Wales than in England, so the 'tax payer' argument doesn't wash.

The argument here (which is true) is that people from North Wales will benefit as anyone going from Wrexham, Bangor et al will get to London quicker as a result. Like I said, that is demonstrably true, but I still think Wales should get it's share of HS2 funding, not least because it's politically sensible to do so.

---

Wales gets more money "per head" compared to England, because the population here is older, poorer , with worse health, and that is unlikely to change as long as Wales is in this unequal Union.

where Wales doesn't get it's fair share in spending is in infrastructure spending which could actually help to transform the country

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

on the other hand membership of the EU was worth a lot more than the membership fee to the UK economy.

Also at least the money we got back was occasionally spent on infrastructure projects in Wales, unlike Westminster who will always spend it in the South East

---

The Westminster govt spends far far more in Wales than the EU ever did!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I agree, Wales should get it's share of funding, but it has to be said that more public money is spent per head in Wales than in England, so the 'tax payer' argument doesn't wash.

The argument here (which is true) is that people from North Wales will benefit as anyone going from Wrexham, Bangor et al will get to London quicker as a result. Like I said, that is demonstrably true, but I still think Wales should get it's share of HS2 funding, not least because it's politically sensible to do so.

---

well there was plenty of people on question time saying its not true from a bit further up the warrington area last week

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Wales gets more money "per head" compared to England, because the population here is older, poorer , with worse health, and that is unlikely to change as long as Wales is in this unequal Union.

where Wales doesn't get it's fair share in spending is in infrastructure spending which could actually help to transform the country

---

I don't disagree with you there.

I'm just providing an answer to the question, and that is because if ever the HS2 project were completed then people from Wrexham, Caernarfon and Holyhead will be able to get to Birmingham, Oxford, London etc much quicker - thus there is considered to be a benefit to Wales.

I don't agree with the whole HS2 project. Electrification of the GWR made sense, we can now get to London in 1hr45mins, but does that really need to be much quicker than that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poc

well there was plenty of people on question time saying its not true from a bit further up the warrington area last week

---

There are many reasons to criticism HS2 but undoubtedly it will make some journeys quicker. That much isn't in doubt.

The isolated valleys around Bridgend are amongst the poorest regions of the UK , even with government support . The support from both Welsh and UK government isn't enough but its absolutely vital .

Wales receives £16bn in fiscal transfers per annum. We aren't doing to bad out of the union.

HS2 is a UK project, much the same as the barrage was, or the Severn Bridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiVis

Wales receives £16bn in fiscal transfers per annum. We aren't doing to bad out of the union.

HS2 is a UK project, much the same as the barrage was, or the Severn Bridge.

---

how much of those fiscal transfers are for infrastructure?


also the barrage which wasn't approved?
or the second severn crossing which was funded at a completely exorbitant rate mostly by the Welsh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

I'll explain this in simple terms. The UK is in the UK and pays , say £50 billion. It then gets back, say £25 bilion. All that 'EU funding' for pointless projects was actually us receiving half our money back. The 'EU' doesn't have one single euro - it's all contributions from the taxpayers of member states..

---

I'll explain it in simpler terms. The money we gave to the the EU gave us access to their market which to our economy is worth far far more than the £9 billion net we gave them in 2018 - https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-m...ee-55-million/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

I'll explain it in simpler terms. The money we gave to the the EU gave us access to their market which to our economy is worth far far more than the £9 billion net we gave them in 2018 - https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-m...ee-55-million/

---

We have access to their market now, but don't have to pay billions for it, so that's good news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

how much of those fiscal transfers are for infrastructure?


also the barrage which wasn't approved?
or the second severn crossing which was funded at a completely exorbitant rate mostly by the Welsh

---

it doesn't matter how much fiscal transfers are for infrastructure. If the needs of Wales are different then public spending will be on different things.

As for your claim that the Severn Bridge was funded by the Welsh, the entire suspension bridge is in England, and was funded from central government before the Barnett formula was even thought of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiVis

it doesn't matter how much fiscal transfers are for infrastructure. If the needs of Wales are different then public spending will be on different things.

As for your claim that the Severn Bridge was funded by the Welsh, the entire suspension bridge is in England, and was funded from central government before the Barnett formula was even thought of.

---

of course it matters how much is for infrastructure, why can people not see this?
Wales spends a higher proportion on pensions, health issues social security etc BECAUSE we have less money spent on infrastructure offer the decades, it is not a good reason to justify not spending as much on infrastructure as England.

imagine there are 2 towns, one is wealthy with a good rail link , the other is poor with mostly unemployed people and no rail.
if you have a pot of money for infrastructure, do you spend it on the poorer town? or do you further upgrade the rich town because you already spend more in benefits on the poorer town? that is the choice that the UK is continually making and it's bullshit.

the second Severn bridge was paid for by private finance - which cost about £200million - then the agreement made by the Tories was that they would be able to charge for using the bridge until they had made £1bn of profit in 1991 values, after any expenses to maintain the bridge, as this was paid for by motorists it basically came directly from the Welsh economy not paid for by central government at all.
the Welsh paid for it 5 times over!
that whole deal should be a national scandal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

We have access to their market now, but don't have to pay billions for it, so that's good news.

---

But barely on the same terms and look at the problems it causes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

But barely on the same terms and look at the problems it causes.

---

Well, people would say the old arrangement caused problems too Eric, but we risk repeating a seven year old debate, and I take your point. Onwards and upwards!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Onwards and upwards!

---

As General Melchett said: "If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

As General Melchett said: "If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."

---

Now now, behave!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

The argument here (which is true) is that people from North Wales will benefit as anyone going from Wrexham, Bangor et al will get to London quicker as a result. Like I said, that is demonstrably true, but I still think Wales should get it's share of HS2 funding, not least because it's politically sensible to do so.

---

That's entirely dependent on if the leg beyond Birmingham gets built. The East Midlands/Leeds line of HS2 has already been scrapped and the Birmingham/East Midlands line is also seemingly being considered to be axed.

It's already been said that Manchester's HS2 station won't be buried underground due to the paltry (in the context of the entire project) cost of £5Bn being too high. Plenty of stink has been, and will continue to be, kicked up over that decision.

With the costs constantly rising and work on the Manchester branch not expected to begin for another decade, it wouldn't surprise me if HS2 stops at Birmingham and the rest of the project is binned off for something cheaper and half arsed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

of course it matters how much is for infrastructure, why can people not see this?

---

of course people can see it, why be so condescending? We just appreciate that there is so much money available, and if we spend this more on health and welfare we have less to spend on infrastructure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Wales spends a higher proportion on pensions, health issues social security etc BECAUSE we have less money spent on infrastructure offer the decades, it is not a good reason to justify not spending as much on infrastructure as England.

---

infrastructure is a devolved matter. Westminster even offered to pay for the M4 relief road by Drakeford said no. After 20 years + of devolution, we have to start looking at the Welsh government rather than Westminster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

imagine there are 2 towns, one is wealthy with a good rail link , the other is poor with mostly unemployed people and no rail.
if you have a pot of money for infrastructure, do you spend it on the poorer town? or do you further upgrade the rich town because you already spend more in benefits on the poorer town? that is the choice that the UK is continually making and it's bullshit.

---

Wales makes up 5% of the UK, ergo we should receive 5% of the total budget - which we do. I guarantee than we get a better deal than say Cumbria or Cornwall, even though they are English areas. The only areas of the UK that are fiscal positive are London, the South East and the East, everywhere else is looking for levelling up funding. Wales is not a special case. HS2 does not impact or have any benefit to the SW, but they still have to pay for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

the second Severn bridge was paid for by private finance - which cost about £200million - then the agreement made by the Tories was that they would be able to charge for using the bridge until they had made £1bn of profit in 1991 values, after any expenses to maintain the bridge, as this was paid for by motorists it basically came directly from the Welsh economy not paid for by central government at all.

---

my original point was the Severn Bridge (the suspension bridge built in the 1960s), why have you now started discussing the Second Severn Crossing (to give it its proper name). As this is confusing for you, let me make it clear. In the 1960s when the Severn Bridge was built, the budget for this came from Westminster yet was to the economic benefit of Wales. No one in Wales complained back then that we were the recipient of 100% of the funding for the bridge, so why bellyache now?

As Wales is part of the UK, there will be times when UK level expenditure does not have a direct impact on Wales, and there will be times when the impact is disproportional to Wales (or Scotland or NI). An example will be the recent AUKUS announcement regarding building new submarines. These will be built in Scotland and will benefit Scotland far more than 10% (which is the population).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiVis

of course people can see it, why be so condescending? We just appreciate that there is so much money available, and if we spend this more on health and welfare we have less to spend on infrastructure.



infrastructure is a devolved matter. Westminster even offered to pay for the M4 relief road by Drakeford said no. After 20 years + of devolution, we have to start looking at the Welsh government rather than Westminster.


Wales makes up 5% of the UK, ergo we should receive 5% of the total budget - which we do. I guarantee than we get a better deal than say Cumbria or Cornwall, even though they are English areas. The only areas of the UK that are fiscal positive are London, the South East and the East, everywhere else is looking for levelling up funding. Wales is not a special case. HS2 does not impact or have any benefit to the SW, but they still have to pay for it.


my original point was the Severn Bridge (the suspension bridge built in the 1960s), why have you now started discussing the Second Severn Crossing (to give it its proper name). As this is confusing for you, let me make it clear. In the 1960s when the Severn Bridge was built, the budget for this came from Westminster yet was to the economic benefit of Wales. No one in Wales complained back then that we were the recipient of 100% of the funding for the bridge, so why bellyache now?

As Wales is part of the UK, there will be times when UK level expenditure does not have a direct impact on Wales, and there will be times when the impact is disproportional to Wales (or Scotland or NI). An example will be the recent AUKUS announcement regarding building new submarines. These will be built in Scotland and will benefit Scotland far more than 10% (which is the population).

---

so your 2 examples of infrastructure benefitting Wales were a barrage that never got past the planning phase and a bridge that was built in the 1960s, for about £8 million. and again the construction costs were recouped by a toll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

That's entirely dependent on if the leg beyond Birmingham gets built. The East Midlands/Leeds line of HS2 has already been scrapped and the Birmingham/East Midlands line is also seemingly being considered to be axed.

It's already been said that Manchester's HS2 station won't be buried underground due to the paltry (in the context of the entire project) cost of £5Bn being too high. Plenty of stink has been, and will continue to be, kicked up over that decision.

With the costs constantly rising and work on the Manchester branch not expected to begin for another decade, it wouldn't surprise me if HS2 stops at Birmingham and the rest of the project is binned off for something cheaper and half arsed.

---

I agree with you, although even in that scenario it would still be quicker getting to London.

I would have scrapped the whole thing long ago but we are probably too far down the line (no pun intended) now.

Investment in railway is very important but I'm not sure it needs to be HS2. London to Edinburgh for example is just over four hours (and not on high speed lines). Those two major cities are very far apart but within the same country. Is it really necessary to be able to get between the two much faster than that? I'm not convinced.

Better to spend this money on speeding up links between cities in a more affordable manner, and invest in local networks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I agree with you, although even in that scenario it would still be quicker getting to London.

I would have scrapped the whole thing long ago but we are probably too far down the line (no pun intended) now.

Investment in railway is very important but I'm not sure it needs to be HS2. London to Edinburgh for example is just over four hours (and not on high speed lines). Those two major cities are very far apart but within the same country. Is it really necessary to be able to get between the two much faster than that? I'm not convinced.

Better to spend this money on speeding up links between cities in a more affordable manner, and invest in local networks

---

yes HS2 is a strange project, the whole business case for it is for increased capacity on the line, which you can achieve in a number of other cheaper ways.
that said, we should, as a nation, be able to make a few hundred km of high speed rail network - China over the same period have implemented thousands of km, probably for a fraction of the cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I agree with you, although even in that scenario it would still be quicker getting to London.

I would have scrapped the whole thing long ago but we are probably too far down the line (no pun intended) now.

Investment in railway is very important but I'm not sure it needs to be HS2. London to Edinburgh for example is just over four hours (and not on high speed lines). Those two major cities are very far apart but within the same country. Is it really necessary to be able to get between the two much faster than that? I'm not convinced.

Better to spend this money on speeding up links between cities in a more affordable manner, and invest in local networks

---

I actually don’t think the journey from Wrexham to London is any quicker if HS2 only goes to Birmingham. The current quickest route is to go Wrexham to Chester to London. Taking ~2hrs 30.

Wrexham to Birmingham and then Birmingham to London on HS2 would mean going to Chester, changing at Stafford, getting off at New Street and then transferring to the new HS2 station at Curzon Street.

You get off the train that would’ve taken you to London anyway to then transfer twice, including switching stations. The Birmingham to London journey is only quickened by 15 minutes on HS2. Wrexham to Birmingham alone is about the same as Wrexham to London.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I agree, Wales should get it's share of funding, but it has to be said that more public money is spent per head in Wales than in England, so the 'tax payer' argument doesn't wash.

The argument here (which is true) is that people from North Wales will benefit as anyone going from Wrexham, Bangor et al will get to London quicker as a result. Like I said, that is demonstrably true, but I still think Wales should get it's share of HS2 funding, not least because it's politically sensible to do so.

---

It's also true that West Coast main line travellers from Scotland benefit in quicker journey times to London and Scotland had a share of the cash. This is where the Westminster Government argument falls apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

on the other hand membership of the EU was worth a lot more than the membership fee to the UK economy.

Also at least the money we got back was occasionally spent on infrastructure projects in Wales, unlike Westminster who will always spend it in the South East

---

Always the same, Cardiff and the Valleys get everything.

I wondered how much we are owed from the plundering of our natural resources for the past couple of centuries ? #reparation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divine Wright

I wondered how much we are owed from the plundering of our natural resources for the past couple of centuries ? #reparation

---

If they borrowed it we could ask for something back.

If they've just stolen it, we'll get nothing mate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

so your 2 examples of infrastructure benefitting Wales were a barrage that never got past the planning phase and a bridge that was built in the 1960s, for about £8 million. and again the construction costs were recouped by a toll.

---

It's hard to take what you say seriously when you struggle with facts.

Cardiff Bay Barrage is very real, it's been built, I walk across it with my dog two or three times a week. Why you're claiming it doesn't exist is beyond me.

Central government also funded the Severn Bridge.

These are two significant investments that benefit Wales disproportionately that had Barnett consequences. Whatever your opinions are (and from what you have written they are delusional), facts remain facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divine Wright

I wondered how much we are owed from the plundering of our natural resources for the past couple of centuries ? #reparation

---

You need to take this up with the Butes and the Crawshays, not central government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divine Wright

I wondered how much we are owed from the plundering of our natural resources for the past couple of centuries ? #reparation

---

What natural resources ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

What natural resources ?

---

Leeks and daffodils.