The Times: Labour considering cuts to Restoring Your Railway and dropping HS2 Euston

[Bletchleyite]

Where is the evidence of these alleged promises? My impression is that they went out of their way to avoid promising anything.

I think a lot of people infer promises that weren't there.

The only promises I recall were not to increase any of the following taxes, which means other taxes are ripe for increase (and will need to be increased unless we want to continue with the failed policy of austerity):

1. VAT
2. Income Tax
3. National Insurance

 

[Tezza1978]

Indeed, even more than failing to project the new line to Crewe, which is saying something.

I also cannot see Reeves going Sunak style on this. If Euston is cancelled [still think she won't do this] she is going to have to justify why it makes economic sense (it doesn't - the economic boost to the area is far greater than the projected cost)

She would also come under extreme political heat from the metro mayors and Khan and it would create all sorts of embarrassing headlines - and make Haigh look absolutely ridiculous. Hardly the start a new chancellor would want.

My prediction - tunnels to Euston approved and built - but station design punted into a review (which it needs anyway)

 

[brad465]

There are two types of lies in politics:

1) Lying to enhance/protect one's reputation, especially to cover up one's misconduct/role in scandals or announcing specific policies with no plan for delivery.

2) Lying because the truth hurts/is electoral suicide. This report today is an example of this. I bet you most people upset about Labour covering up these plans are the same one's who would condemn them if they'd been honest from the start. This is the same type of lying we all do to ourselves and friends and family too, such as "everything is fine".

I don't like how this is being handled, but I can understand why this is happening the way it is.

 

[Topological]

A thought... Is there truth in the rumours that there is a limit on the height of a building at Euston? Presuming allowing the profit-maximising height to be built would make private funding for the HS2 station more likely, it would not be a bad move for Labour to repeal any limit.

 

[MarkWi72]

Presumably if privately funded/owned, parts of EustonHS2 could hypothetically be rented out to business owners etc.?

 

[Bletchleyite]

A thought... Is there truth in the rumours that there is a limit on the height of a building at Euston? Presuming allowing the profit-maximising height to be built would make private funding for the HS2 station more likely, it would not be a bad move for Labour to repeal any limit.

There is a rule about being able to see St Paul's Cathedral from certain parts of London that does have that effect. If they're repealing swathes of planning rules perhaps that one could go too.

 

[Mikey C]

Both parties were a bit "economical with the truth" during the campaign, not really acknowledging the poor state of the public finances.

Politically it's convenient for Rachel Reeves to blame an unexpected £20bn black hole for making painful cuts, but in reality I'm sure she knew about it already.

A thought... Is there truth in the rumours that there is a limit on the height of a building at Euston? Presuming allowing the profit-maximising height to be built would make private funding for the HS2 station more likely, it would not be a bad move for Labour to repeal any limit.

The local MP, K Starmer might not be happy

 

[edwin_m]

I notice that Euston was mentioned as a possible cut on the BBC earlier this morning, but the article was later edited and no longer mentions it (hence I can't quote something that isn't there): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c724g07qwdwo

"Network North" to replace later HS2 phases was always highly dubious. The HS2 money would not have been spent until many years into the future, so how come the impression was given that the replacement projects could be delivered now?

 

[Xavi]

I understand that HS2 Euston was in a draft document for axing but since removed. No idea if this will be reality though.

 

[Belperpete]

It is politically convenient for Rachel Reeves to make the cuts now, when they can be blamed on the mess that the Tories have left behind. Pretty much as the Tories did when they took power after the global financial crash - blame it on the last lot.

Leave it too long and people will not believe it, pretty much as happened with the Tories continuing to blame Labour a decade or more after the Tories had been in power!

 

[Topological]

There is a rule about being able to see St Paul's Cathedral from certain parts of London that does have that effect. If they're repealing swathes of planning rules perhaps that one could go too.

That was the one I was thinking of. I think those of us outside of London would feel pleased that Labour were taking on a rule which helps people in some of the nicer suburbs of London, but has no parallel in other cities*

* Manchester has an unofficial doughnut policy whereby the central area has limits on height and the bigger towers are on sites surrounding the "hole". However, that has been challenged by the St Michaels (or whatever it is called now) and some of the new developments on the old Manchester Central station approaches.

 

[geoffk]

I've not had much hope for reversing Beeching since Johnson was ousted TBH. I'm not aware of any proposals that have been commenced since then.

Obviously this is disappointing news if correct, particularly if Tavistock and Portishead don't go ahead.

We'll see how the current Government progresses with running the day to day railway.

Alternatively they could bring in a wealth tax to pay for these and help the NHS. The Green Party wanted to introduce a new wealth tax of 1% on assets worth over £10m, and 2% on assets worth more than £1bn.
They said this would affect fewer than 1% of UK households and raise £15bn a year by the end of the next Parliament - a "modest" increase by European standards. The British seem to have a hang-up about paying tax yet moan when they don't get the public services they want, and which one the world's richest countries ought to be able to afford. (I wasn't really expecting 45 lines to reopen but half a dozen would have been good).

 

[SynthD]

Oxford has that rule but it’s been weakly followed in the decade since this quote.

Under the so-called Carfax Height Guideline, buildings within 1,200m of the 23m high Carfax Tower are prevented from exceeding 18.2m above street level to make sure the famous views of Oxford’s spires are preserved.

When this was discussed a few months ago someone said that only half the Euston site is affected by the sight lines.

 

[yorksrob]

Alternatively they could bring in a wealth tax to pay for these and help the NHS. The Green Party wanted to introduce a new wealth tax of 1% on assets worth over £10m, and 2% on assets worth more than £1bn.
They said this would affect fewer than 1% of UK households and raise £15bn a year by the end of the next Parliament - a "modest" increase by European standards. The British seem to have a hang-up about paying tax yet moan when they don't get the public services they want, and which one the world's richest countries ought to be able to afford. (I wasn't really expecting 45 lines to reopen but half a dozen would have been good).

I've never understood why its apparently so much better to tax peoples hard-earned income, rather than wealth, much of which is windfall/inheritance.

 

[Wolfie]

You’re thinking of The Telegraph.

More like Reform nowadays.

 

[Mikey C]

That was the one I was thinking of. I think those of us outside of London would feel pleased that Labour were taking on a rule which helps people in some of the nicer suburbs of London, but has no parallel in other cities*

* Manchester has an unofficial doughnut policy whereby the central area has limits on height and the bigger towers are on sites surrounding the "hole". However, that has been challenged by the St Michaels (or whatever it is called now) and some of the new developments on the old Manchester Central station approaches.

The sightlines towards St Pauls are about preserving certain historical sightlines, which benefits everyone.

And the centre of London is full of tower blocks and skyscrapers, so it's hardly prevented development.

 

[Topological]

Alternatively they could bring in a wealth tax to pay for these and help the NHS. The Green Party wanted to introduce a new wealth tax of 1% on assets worth over £10m, and 2% on assets worth more than £1bn.
They said this would affect fewer than 1% of UK households and raise £15bn a year by the end of the next Parliament - a "modest" increase by European standards. The British seem to have a hang-up about paying tax yet moan when they don't get the public services they want, and which one the world's richest countries ought to be able to afford. (I wasn't really expecting 45 lines to reopen but half a dozen would have been good).

Perhaps next time people will vote for a more left-leaning party?

I strongly doubt the numbers there. IF I had such assets they would be in companies and well away from the reaches of HMRC.

The sightlines towards St Pauls are about preserving certain historical sightlines, which benefits everyone.

And the centre of London is full of tower blocks and skyscrapers, so it's hardly prevented development.

BUT it specifically limits the height on part of the Euston development (and therefore must impact quite a lot of sites).

What specifically are the "benefits"? We are not talking about the "right to light" here.

If you live in one of the largest cities in Europe then it should not come as a surprise that land gets built higher. I have equally less sympathy for those losing views in Manchester (or other cities) when they seem shocked that the low density industrial sheds are getting replaced by something tall.

 

[A0]

Alternatively they could bring in a wealth tax to pay for these and help the NHS. The Green Party wanted to introduce a new wealth tax of 1% on assets worth over £10m, and 2% on assets worth more than £1bn.
They said this would affect fewer than 1% of UK households and raise £15bn a year by the end of the next Parliament - a "modest" increase by European standards. The British seem to have a hang-up about paying tax yet moan when they don't get the public services they want, and which one the world's richest countries ought to be able to afford. (I wasn't really expecting 45 lines to reopen but half a dozen would have been good).

I've never understood why its apparently so much better to tax peoples hard-earned income, rather than wealth, much of which is windfall/inheritance.

The issue is asset values are variable - so a £ 1m share portfolio could lost 20% of its value overnight in a stock market crash.

Asset values on other things, such as land or property are highly arbitrary - if somebody owns a classic car how do you value it ? It's unique - so do you say its rebuild cost is its value ? Or the value if it were auctioned ? No guarantee of a certain value being realised at an auction.

"Wealth" taxes are difficult and expensive to administer and often yield much, much lesss than their campaigners claim - France provides a recent example

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs

Normally progressives like to point to Europe for policy success. Not this time. The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems. Only last year, French president Emmanuel Macron killed it.

In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by the OECD and others, there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn't raise much revenue.

 

[Wolfie]

There is a rule about being able to see St Paul's Cathedral from certain parts of London that does have that effect. If they're repealing swathes of planning rules perhaps that one could go too.

Expect massive and fully justified kickback from the heritage lobby.

 

[Magdalia]

There is a rule about being able to see St Paul's Cathedral from certain parts of London that does have that effect. If they're repealing swathes of planning rules perhaps that one could go too.

The relevant protected views of St Paul's are from Primrose Hill and Parliament Hill.

Primrose Hill is a Royal Park, Parliament Hill is part of Hampstead Heath, owned and administered by the Corporation of London.

Maybe the Crown Estate and the Corporation of London could help to fund Euston HS2 station in order to protect the viewpoints? Both have very deep pockets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Expect massive and fully justified kickback from the heritage lobby.

I'd certainly expect it, but I don't agree that it's justified. Cities must not be set in aspic. If you want safe, nice views, live in a rural village, not a dynamic, world-class city.

 

[Wolfie]

I'd certainly expect it, but I don't agree that it's justified. Cities must not be set in aspic.

It always amazes me that folk who don't live in the cities in question feel justified in trashing them. Perhaps people in London should get to decide on your local planning issues? If so expect 30k new houses!

 

[Bletchleyite]

It always amazes me that folk who don't live in the cities in question feel justified in trashing them.

Developing them you mean.

Perhaps people in London should get to decide on your local planning issues? If so expect 30k new houses!

I am in support of large amounts of development in and around Milton Keynes. Making it a city of half a million within 20 years would be a good goal (but be sure to build the infrastructure - a city that size needs trams, for instance, buses won't cut it). Also any new development should include extension of the MK unitary area to encompass it - development in Aylesbury Vale causes trouble because the planning gain money goes to Buckinghamshire, not MK where the services are used.

You can't live in a New Town and oppose development - anyone who does (aside from those who moved there prior to it being designated) is a rank hypocrite.

 

[Topological]

It always amazes me that folk who don't live in the cities in question feel justified in trashing them. Perhaps people in London should get to decide on your local planning issues? If so expect 30k new houses!

Honestly, what is the cost of blocking the view of St Paul's from Primrose Hill?

If someone was going to put a massive tower block in the gardens of Primrose Hill then it would make sense. That is what we all have the "right to light" principle to prevent.

However, a tower as far away as Euston is only blocking a view. It is not genuinely impinging on the day-to-day life of residents in Primrose Hill.

I think if Labour put it to a referendum there would be very little sympathy for those fortunate enough to currently benefit from the rule.

IF there are similar rules in other cities that are also preventing the optimisation of national infrastructure then we should be repealing those rules too.

 

[renegademaster]

I think a lot of people infer promises that weren't there.

The only promises I recall were not to increase any of the following taxes, which means other taxes are ripe for increase (and will need to be increased unless we want to continue with the failed policy of austerity):

1. VAT
2. Income Tax
3. National Insurance

Labour aren't going to raise any major taxes nor make any substantive budget cuts. They will just do what every goverment that promises to balance the books do, run up the debt and inflation when they realise it's too politically hard to cut spending or raise taxes

 

[HSTEd]

I think a lot of people infer promises that weren't there.

The only promises I recall were not to increase any of the following taxes, which means other taxes are ripe for increase (and will need to be increased unless we want to continue with the failed policy of austerity):

1. VAT
2. Income Tax
3. National Insurance

They also promised to continue the triple lock, which abolishing would have paid for a lot of infrastructure.
That promise is worth far more than any short term promises not to increase taxes.

 

[yorksrob]

Really any government needs to look at where the wealth is going to:

- Too many imports (hopefully their energy scheme will help to address some of this).
- Too many multi-nationals with their fingers in the pie. Where are the profits being invested.

 

[Magdalia]

Honestly, what is the cost of blocking the view of St Paul's from Primrose Hill?

The protected views are regarded as being of National not just local importance. I don't know the view from Primrose Hill, but I do know the view from Parliament Hill. It is spectacular, and I recommend it.

A similar example is the proposed Norwich-Tilbury pylon line, which goes underground through Constable Country to protect views that are regarded as being of National not just local importance. People don't want to go to Flatford Mill to see where Constable painted the Haywain and find that there is a pylon in the background.

 

[Topological]

Really any government needs to look at where the wealth is going to:

- Too many imports (hopefully their energy scheme will help to address some of this).
- Too many multi-nationals with their fingers in the pie. Where are the profits being invested.

Neither are really government responsibility though.

IF we all insist on following fashion then we are all compelled to buy from stores who sell to many (hence are large) and that means multinationals.

Governments could tax multi-nationals, but again you are looking at a group who can find a tax way round it.

The protected views are regarded as being of National not just local importance. I don't know the view from Primrose Hill, but I do know the view from Parliament Hill. It is spectacular, and I recommend it.

A similar example is the proposed Norwich-Tilbury pylon line, which goes underground through Constable Country to protect views that are regarded as being of National not just local importance. People don't want to go to Flatford Mill to see where Constable painted the Haywain and find that there is a pylon in the background.

We are not talking about putting a tower directly in front of the view though?

Any tower at Euston would block a part of the view, a narrow part. Presumably that means part of the dome of St Pauls would not be visible, but the majority of London would still be visible.

The Constable example is also madness, but at least it makes sense to stop having a pylon within the immediate view of a famous painting. IF the pylon is more than 500m away then I do wonder whether efforts are needed to place the wire underground are needed.

I am glad we do not protect Lowry views though.

 

[JamesT]

I've never understood why its apparently so much better to tax peoples hard-earned income, rather than wealth, much of which is windfall/inheritance.

Because taxing wealth is generally quite hard. Taking a slice of a transaction as it happens is relatively easy.
For many people, their 'wealth' is the value of their house. They would struggle to find the cash if they were being taxed on a percentage of that value.
For others their wealth is tied up in the valuation of companies, again they don't necessarily have the cash on hand to pay a tax on it. It's also often a nominal value, a bit of good news and your value doubles, bad news and it plunges. I worked for a company where the shares were £4 when I started and 40p when I left 9 months later. I wasn't there long enough to have joined the share scheme. If I had, would it be fair for me to have had to pay taxes on the shares at £4? Would I get a refund the next year at 40p? We already have taxes such as capital gains tax which apply when someone sells their shares and actually gets the money.