Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[mongers]

So just to be clear - $500 mil for feasibility studies?

Of course not $500 million just for feasibility studies; it's £500 million   

 

The article says feasibility studies, business plans and designs.  In the systems I've worked on the contractors designs and business plans would be very high level and it would be up to the suppliers to put together the detailed design and business plans as part of their bid.  It could be different in the United Kingdom, I've never worked on a project there.

To be fair there are about 30 projects listed in Monger's post.  Most of them look minor, and a lot of them are restorations, so they should already have a great deal of information on the projects, but I really don't know that for sure.

Yes it's a very confusing project, seems one must search for each individual study and find what if any advancements were made. Alternatively rely on anecdotes from Josq and I.

[Richard Hakluyt]

FWIW I think Starmer has got the balance about right with regards to the foreign policy crisis. He has backed Ukraine, come forward and said that Britain will help with a post-war peacekeeping force there; meanwhile he and his ministers have kept the tone polite towards the Trump regime. If a state visit and some hanging about with our royal family can help get some more favourable outcomes then I'm all for that. Poor old Charles though 

[Sheilbh]

FWIW I think Starmer has got the balance about right with regards to the foreign policy crisis. He has backed Ukraine, come forward and said that Britain will help with a post-war peacekeeping force there; meanwhile he and his ministers have kept the tone polite towards the Trump regime. If a state visit and some hanging about with our royal family can help get some more favourable outcomes then I'm all for that. Poor old Charles though 

I agree on the foreign policy/comms piece. But the big criticism I have of Starmer on this (hopefully soon to change) is that he is taking that often quite forward stance while the UK's commitments on future defence spending is lagging behind many European countries. I think we're still saying 2.5% at some undefined point in the future - that's way behind Poland, the Baltics, France and I think the Nordics too.

Related to that I think the handling of the Joint Expeditionary Force has been really disappointing. That's basically a multi-national partnership within NATO set up in 2012 of Britain, the Nordics, the Baltics and the Netherlands designed to be able to deploy. Since the invasion it's become more important as it's a gathering of many of Ukraine's strongest supporters in Europe (I also think it's an example of the "mini-lateralism" that I think is a model for Europe's defence - like France, Romania and Greece). There have been fairly regular complaints from the Baltics especially that they want the British government to step up.

There was a lot of negative briefing at the last summit in Tallinn were Starmer basically explained why he couldn't commit to an increase in British defence spending. He then left the stage (while other heads of government were still there) for another event.

I agree with Starmer's stance and what he's saying. But I think the UK position is a bit all furcoat and no knickers at the minute. I also think the JEF event was fairly disrespectful and is spurning a chance to lead and help like-minded European allies. I think it's one of those contradictions/paradoxes. Starmer and his team want to strengthen relations with Europe, but that has very much meant a focus on rebuilding ties with Paris and Berlin especially while the last government didn't do enough on spending either, but would absolutely love the JEF stuff as a chance to shine as "leadership" and "global Britain". Arguably that's meant the pro-European government has neglected an opportunity to really materially support European defence, while a government that was dubious at best would seize the opportunity even while neglecting the formal and traditional ties - it'd be nice if we could try to walk and chew gum.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I think we have to bite the bullet, put taxes up and stop being so self-indulgent. There is no opportunity for Starmer to be a "meh" prime minister; he will either go down in history as a poundland Chamberlain or as the man who started the UK's recovery....unfortunately I don't think his odds are great 

[Sheilbh]

I think we have to bite the bullet, put taxes up and stop being so self-indulgent. There is no opportunity for Starmer to be a "meh" prime minister; he will either go down in history as a poundland Chamberlain or as the man who started the UK's recovery....unfortunately I don't think his odds are great 

Yeah I am not enthused. I've been down on Europe's response for the last year or two - it's a bit like the Zeitenwende I would defend Germany because I think it is sincere and a profound shift which would always take time even in a country that was maybe a little faster moving than Germany.

But we're three years in and Europe's still not ready for the predicted predictable risks. You know we've had so many "wake up calls" for European security - Obama saying they needed to focus on the Pacific, Russia in Georgia, Crimea, Trump's election, an expectation for the last four years from basically everyone I know that Trump would win again in 2024 and a full Russian invasion. I do still think this is in our hands but I despair at the willed helplessness.

[Gups]

So did any railways get built for this 500 million?

At least in the US we seem to build things. Sure they are usually way over budget and take twice as long as we planned but something gets built.

That's a very good question, it's not at all clear it was more than one of them, the one that was reinstated is coincidentally one I've used, Exeter St Davids to Okehampton in Devon, nice little ride but not worth 500mil. 

I know that it said in the article that the £500m was for feasibility etc but I don't think that's true.

According to this article £316m was spent from the fund, most of it (£211m) on the Northumberland Line. £49m on the Dartmoor line that you reference and some on re-opening stations.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/43m-spent-by-dft-on-restoring-your-railway-projects-that-hang-in-the-balance-06-11-2024/

To Jos's point, just because a project was at planning stage before the fund was set up, doesn't mean it couldn't seek funding from it - as the Northumberland Line did.

It was a good idea, was delivering at a decent cost benefit ratio (by our standards) and it's a shame that Labour shut it down instead of reinvesting energy and money in it. A lot of these projects are pretty quick and easy wins compared to the massive schemes being promoted by Reeves which won't see any economic benefit for a decade even if they are delivered.

[Josquius]

The Starmer government strikes me as quite like this.

So did any railways get built for this 500 million?

At least in the US we seem to build things. Sure they are usually way over budget and take twice as long as we planned but something gets built.

That's a very good question, it's not at all clear it was more than one of them, the one that was reinstated is coincidentally one I've used, Exeter St Davids to Okehampton in Devon, nice little ride but not worth 500mil. 

I know that it said in the article that the £500m was for feasibility etc but I don't think that's true.

According to this article £316m was spent from the fund, most of it (£211m) on the Northumberland Line. £49m on the Dartmoor line that you reference and some on re-opening stations.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/43m-spent-by-dft-on-restoring-your-railway-projects-that-hang-in-the-balance-06-11-2024/

To Jos's point, just because a project was at planning stage before the fund was set up, doesn't mean it couldn't seek funding from it - as the Northumberland Line did.

It was a good idea, was delivering at a decent cost benefit ratio (by our standards) and it's a shame that Labour shut it down instead of reinvesting energy and money in it. A lot of these projects are pretty quick and easy wins compared to the massive schemes being promoted by Reeves which won't see any economic benefit for a decade even if they are delivered.

I can't remember the details of the timelines off the top of my head, but I'm sure there were some accounting games with the funding all agreed and everything ready to go on Northumberland before the restoring your railways pot was announced- that they then put it under the header for this fund was just clever book keeping that meant they could get away with paying out less overall on railways. Also a handy pit of local politics in trying to claim that win for the Tories, Blyth being one of those infamous fallen "red wall"  seats.

And yes. Lots of projects that present clear wins that should have gone ahead. The same was true of the connecting communities report of 2009. The Tories came in and austerity was the name of the game so even those with clear positive CBRs got cut.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

That deal about Diego garcia does have a smell of 'stupid' about though. Better to not do a sale and leaseback on a strategic asset like that. Especially not with a country that might turn it over to your enemy, and apparently has no real claim on it either.

[mongers]

So did any railways get built for this 500 million?

At least in the US we seem to build things. Sure they are usually way over budget and take twice as long as we planned but something gets built.

That's a very good question, it's not at all clear it was more than one of them, the one that was reinstated is coincidentally one I've used, Exeter St Davids to Okehampton in Devon, nice little ride but not worth 500mil. 

I know that it said in the article that the £500m was for feasibility etc but I don't think that's true.

According to this article £316m was spent from the fund, most of it (£211m) on the Northumberland Line. £49m on the Dartmoor line that you reference and some on re-opening stations.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/43m-spent-by-dft-on-restoring-your-railway-projects-that-hang-in-the-balance-06-11-2024/

To Jos's point, just because a project was at planning stage before the fund was set up, doesn't mean it couldn't seek funding from it - as the Northumberland Line did.

It was a good idea, was delivering at a decent cost benefit ratio (by our standards) and it's a shame that Labour shut it down instead of reinvesting energy and money in it. A lot of these projects are pretty quick and easy wins compared to the massive schemes being promoted by Reeves which won't see any economic benefit for a decade even if they are delivered.

Thank you Gups that was what I was looking for, a good overview of the scheme.

And that was my criticism of Reeves, to off-hand shut it down, almost making it just a rhetorical flourish in her autumn statement.

IIRC the Dartmoor line has been a considerable success with higher than expect journeys taken and I think it's now moved to an hourly service to cope. 

[Sheilbh]

Reporting in the Standard that Starmer's new plan on defence, having recognised that we do need to increase spending come what may, is....to raise it from 2 to 2.5% by 2030 and 3% by 2035. The Treasury have apparently (almost) agreed and the Trump team have already been briefed and are on board.

Which is not nothing but after a year of internal Cabinet rows, commissioning a new Strategic Defence Review etc the government's position is now the same as Sunak's in the budget before the election.

But also it feels wildly inadequate to the moment we're in.

Still baby steps and all that. It is, at least, the right direction of travel.

[mongers]

Reporting in the Standard that Starmer's new plan on defence, having recognised that we do need to increase spending come what may, is....to raise it from 2 to 2.5% by 2030 and 3% by 2035. The Treasury have apparently (almost) agreed and the Trump team have already been briefed and are on board.

Which is not nothing but after a year of internal Cabinet rows, commissioning a new Strategic Defence Review etc the government's position is now the same as Sunak's in the budget before the election.

But also it feels wildly inadequate to the moment we're in.

Still baby steps and all that. It is, at least, the right direction of travel.

We need to sell those white elephant (CVs) fast, depending on how things go with NATO and Trump, perhaps to the highest bidder.

[Valmy]

We need to sell those white elephant (CVs) fast, depending on how things go with NATO and Trump, perhaps to the highest bidder.

See this is the kind of Paradox game thinking we can excel at.

Looking at how the naval war went in the Ukraine conflict is there a practical need for big surface ships? I mean I guess if you need to go down and defend the Falklands from Milei or something.

But mostly Europe's focus is defending its land border. Russia's navy is geographically easy to contain.

[crazy canuck]

We need to sell those white elephant (CVs) fast, depending on how things go with NATO and Trump, perhaps to the highest bidder.

See this is the kind of Paradox game thinking we can excel at.

Looking at how the naval war went in the Ukraine conflict is there a practical need for big surface ships? I mean I guess if you need to go down and defend the Falklands from Milei or something.

But mostly Europe's focus is defending its land border. Russia's navy is geographically easy to contain.

Protecting trade routes against American interference

[mongers]

We need to sell those white elephant (CVs) fast, depending on how things go with NATO and Trump, perhaps to the highest bidder.

See this is the kind of Paradox game thinking we can excel at.

Looking at how the naval war went in the Ukraine conflict is there a practical need for big surface ships? I mean I guess if you need to go down and defend the Falklands from Milei or something.

But mostly Europe's focus is defending its land border. Russia's navy is geographically easy to contain.

Protecting trade routes against American interference

 

[Valmy]

Protecting trade routes against American interference

 

Well let's defend Europe from Russia before we start challenging America's control of international sea trade