How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

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 .

[Feedback]

Re: How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

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.

[Rjk]

Re: How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

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

[Doucas]

Re: How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

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/

[JamesWales]

Re: How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

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.

[Feedback]

Re: How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

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.

[Rjk]

Re: How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

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.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Re: How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

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.

[JamesWales]

Re: How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

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!

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Re: How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

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."

[JamesWales]

Re: How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

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!

[Canton Kev]

Re: How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

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.

[Feedback]

Re: How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

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.

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.

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.

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).

[Rjk]

Re: How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

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.

[JamesWales]

Re: How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

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