How are Welsh taxpayers paying for an England rail project?

[Rjk]

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.

[HiVis]

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]

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.

[HiVis]

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.

[Rjk]

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.

ok so apologies I had assumed you meant the second Severn crossing and the Severn barrage as major infrastructure projects, but instead you were talking about the original Severn bridge and Cardiff bay barrage as examples of infrastructure spending by Westminster that benefits Wales.
that's 2 fairly small projects over the course of the last 60 years, the bridge funding was also repaid many times over by the bridge tolls, so that was effectively paid for by mostly the Welsh as well.
at any given time there are several multi billion pound infrastructure projects taking place in London at the same time. a little over 100m over the last 60 years is a piss in the ocean.

[PontBlue]

Yet another project that "benefits" Wales so we don't get equivalent funding

Wales misses out on £1bn as UK Government defines a second major English rail project as 'England and Wales' - Wales Online

[Rjk]

Yet another project that "benefits" Wales so we don't get equivalent funding

Wales misses out on £1bn as UK Government defines a second major English rail project as 'England and Wales' - Wales Online

****ing bullshit

[HiVis]

ok so apologies I had assumed you meant the second Severn crossing and the Severn barrage as major infrastructure projects, but instead you were talking about the original Severn bridge and Cardiff bay barrage as examples of infrastructure spending by Westminster that benefits Wales.
that's 2 fairly small projects over the course of the last 60 years, the bridge funding was also repaid many times over by the bridge tolls, so that was effectively paid for by mostly the Welsh as well.
at any given time there are several multi billion pound infrastructure projects taking place in London at the same time. a little over 100m over the last 60 years is a piss in the ocean.

the Cardiff Bay Barrage cost over £120m. The point being is that Wales often benefits from UK wide projects that don't benefit other areas.

HS2 is going to cost say £100bn, so the Welsh equivalent would be £5bn over 20 years, or around £250m per annum. Given we already have around £16bn in fiscal transfers I'd say we're ahead of the game.

[Rjk]

the Cardiff Bay Barrage cost over £120m. The point being is that Wales often benefits from UK wide projects that don't benefit other areas.

HS2 is going to cost say £100bn, so the Welsh equivalent would be £5bn over 20 years, or around £250m per annum. Given we already have around £16bn in fiscal transfers I'd say we're ahead of the game.

£250m per annum is a significant fraction of Wales' available infrastructure funds, that would make a big difference to us.

as explained before the "fiscal transfers" you mention is almost entirely structural spending like pensions, healthcare and social security - this type of spending will never improve Wales' lot, it is required because Wales has seen less development than England, to use that as a reason not to invest fairly here is just bullshit