|
Crossrail a poor buy?
I have been told that a parliamentary commsission judged that
Crossrail was poor value for money. Can anybody confirm this? -- Michael Bell |
Crossrail a poor buy?
"Michael Bell" wrote in message ... I have been told that a parliamentary commsission judged that Crossrail was poor value for money. Can anybody confirm this? -- Michael Bell That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard' and anti-subsidy agenda. Things have somewhat progressed since then. Colin |
Crossrail a poor buy?
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote:
That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard' and anti-subsidy agenda. Things have somewhat progressed since then. What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken! If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes of London business and commuters. |
Crossrail a poor buy?
Paul Weaver wrote in message ...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote: That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard' and anti-subsidy agenda. Things have somewhat progressed since then. What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken! If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes of London business and commuters. Given the degree to which London is the engine of the British economy, I am deeply skeptical that the SouthEast is a net beneficiary of the central treasury. On the contrary, if there any cross regional subsidies, I strongly suspect that the flow of money is in the opposite direction than the one you suggest. Do you have any evidence that suggests otherwise? |
Crossrail a poor buy?
"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote: That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard' and anti-subsidy agenda. Things have somewhat progressed since then. What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken! If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes of London business and commuters. On that basis, London taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidise Regional railway TOCs that come nowhere near London or the various loss-making metros in Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Nottingham, etc. Instead, Londoners' huge taxes could be reduced, still leaving plenty over for fixing the Tube and building Crossrails 1, 2, 3, etc. |
Crossrail a poor buy?
"Paul Weaver" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote: That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard' and anti-subsidy agenda. Things have somewhat progressed since then. What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken! If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes of London business and commuters. So by that argument high wage earners in London payting higher a\mounts of income and other taxes shouldn't contribute to the unemployed of other parts of the UK? We live in a society where we all pay in to a central pot and everyone benefits from that central pot. On a different theme, why is building a new railway "subsidy" and a road "investement"? They're both for the same purpose. |
Crossrail a poor buy?
"Paul Weaver" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote: That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard' and anti-subsidy agenda. Things have somewhat progressed since then. What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken! If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes of London business and commuters. You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Londoners massively subsidise the rest of the UK with their tax outlay - something that Ken is always quick to highlight. Crossrail would only go a small way to redress the huge historic inbalance. Perhaps London should go independent and keep all our tax revenue to ourselves - then you'd be sorry! Colin |
Crossrail a poor buy?
In article , Colin
wrote: "Michael Bell" wrote in message ... I have been told that a parliamentary commsission judged that Crossrail was poor value for money. Can anybody confirm this? -- Michael Bell That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard' and anti-subsidy agenda. Things have somewhat progressed since then. Colin Saying that they don't want it in their back yard is quite a different thing from saying that it is "poor value for money". Saying that it is "poor value for money" at least accepts the idea that it can be right to spend money, but that the money might be better spent on other things, eg making better use of what's already there by creating interchange where routes cross over each other without interchange, there must be several dozen such sites in London. And there must be many other serious contenders for available funds. AS REPORTED TO ME, the judgement was made that Crossrail did not rank high against such competitors even within London. So why is there such a push for it? -- Michael |
Crossrail a poor buy?
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:06:53 +0100, Michael Bell
wrote: I have been told that a parliamentary commsission judged that Crossrail was poor value for money. Can anybody confirm this? Well ISTR a report in the Sunday press a while ago which noted that a 3mile rail tunnel is being built under Kiel for £400 million whilst a 5 mile tunnel in London is costed at £17 billion.... -- ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Please reply to the group Replies to this address will bounce! ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø |
Crossrail a poor buy?
Paul Weaver wrote:
If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes of London business and commuters. You might care to check how, say, the Manchester tram network expansion is being funded. |
Crossrail a poor buy?
Cheeky wrote:
Well ISTR a report in the Sunday press a while ago which noted that a 3mile rail tunnel is being built under Kiel for £400 million whilst a 5 mile tunnel in London is costed at £17 billion.... I'm sure that such a blind comparison is completely valid, oh yes. Why not bring the Big Dig into it too? |
Crossrail a poor buy?
"Colin" wrote in
: "Paul Weaver" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote: That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard' and anti-subsidy agenda. Things have somewhat progressed since then. What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken! If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes of London business and commuters. You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Londoners massively subsidise the rest of the UK with their tax outlay - something that Ken is always quick to highlight. Crossrail would only go a small way to redress the huge historic inbalance. Perhaps London should go independent and keep all our tax revenue to ourselves - then you'd be sorry! While this is true in pure numbers terms, the wealth of this country that Londoner's pay themselves for (mis)managing was never generated in London. |
Crossrail a poor buy?
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 10:58:35 +0100, Colin wrote:
Perhaps London should go independent and keep all our tax revenue to ourselves - then you'd be sorry! Why? I live and work in London |
Crossrail a poor buy?
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 09:31:30 +0000, Cast_Iron wrote:
So by that argument high wage earners in London payting higher a\mounts of income and other taxes shouldn't contribute to the unemployed of other parts of the UK? No. Tax is evil, social security is evil, and subsidising rail is evil. We live in a society where we all pay in to a central pot and everyone benefits from that central pot. And that society is wrong On a different theme, why is building a new railway "subsidy" and a road "investement"? They're both for the same purpose. Except car drivers pay £30bn a year in taxes through Car tax and petrol tax, yet only see £5bn investment in roads. In reality train users should be paying something like £150pw for a travel card for zone 1 alone. |
Crossrail a poor buy?
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 10:58:35 +0100, Colin wrote:
Perhaps London should go independent and keep all our tax revenue to ourselves - then you'd be sorry! Oh yes, the rest of the country would love to get rid of the arrogant whiners in the south east |
Crossrail a poor buy?
Paul Weaver wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 09:31:30 +0000, Cast_Iron wrote: So by that argument high wage earners in London payting higher a\mounts of income and other taxes shouldn't contribute to the unemployed of other parts of the UK? No. Tax is evil, social security is evil, and subsidising rail is evil. We live in a society where we all pay in to a central pot and everyone benefits from that central pot. And that society is wrong So why do you continue to live in such a society? Unless you've already left the UK in which case what are you whinging about? On a different theme, why is building a new railway "subsidy" and a road "investement"? They're both for the same purpose. Except car drivers pay £30bn a year in taxes through Car tax and petrol tax, yet only see £5bn investment in roads. In reality train users should be paying something like £150pw for a travel card for zone 1 alone. (Yet again) Taxes levied on motor vehicles and their use is not hypothecated. |
Crossrail a poor buy?
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:00:52 +0000, Cast_Iron wrote:
We live in a society where we all pay in to a central pot and everyone benefits from that central pot. And that society is wrong So why do you continue to live in such a society? Unless you've already left the UK in which case what are you whinging about? Ahh, so when Thatcher was in I take it you supported her every decision. After all if you didn't like it you should have left. Why dont we have the U.S. System where you get a referendum on taxes? Or the Swedish system where they get a referendum on pretty much everything? (Yet again) Taxes levied on motor vehicles and their use is not hypothecated. (Yet again), this is unfair theft and discrimination against the poor. |
Crossrail a poor buy?
"Michael Bell" wrote in message ... In article , Colin wrote: "Michael Bell" wrote in message ... I have been told that a parliamentary commsission judged that Crossrail was poor value for money. Can anybody confirm this? -- Michael Bell That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard' and anti-subsidy agenda. Things have somewhat progressed since then. Colin Saying that they don't want it in their back yard is quite a different thing from saying that it is "poor value for money". Saying that it is "poor value for money" at least accepts the idea that it can be right to spend money, but that the money might be better spent on other things, eg making better use of what's already there by creating interchange where routes cross over each other without interchange, there must be several dozen such sites in London. And there must be many other serious contenders for available funds. AS REPORTED TO ME, the judgement was made that Crossrail did not rank high against such competitors even within London. So why is there such a push for it? -- Michael Because the people with the money want it to happen: http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/our_s...onse_09_02.pdf Quote: "The construction of Crossrail is vital for the future success of London as a world-class city." And what is the point of 'better interchanges' if the lines themselves are choked full of people at rush hour and it is impossible to squeeze more trains down them? What were these competitors you quote anyway and did they ever happen? Colin |
Crossrail a poor buy?
In article , Steve
wrote: [snip] If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes of London business and commuters. You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Londoners massively subsidise the rest of the UK with their tax outlay - something that Ken is always quick to highlight. Crossrail would only go a small way to redress the huge historic inbalance. Perhaps London should go independent and keep all our tax revenue to ourselves - then you'd be sorry! While this is true in pure numbers terms, the wealth of this country that Londoner's pay themselves for (mis)managing was never generated in London. There has been a series of articles in the Guardian newspaper recently on this topic (all available on the Guardian web site, so you can look at it), and the conclusion is that London does get slightly more money spent on it per head than the rest of the country, but that's not the question I asked, which is, "Is it true that Crossrail has been judged Poor Value for Money? And on what grounds?" -- Michael Bell |
Crossrail a poor buy?
Paul Weaver wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:00:52 +0000, Cast_Iron wrote: We live in a society where we all pay in to a central pot and everyone benefits from that central pot. And that society is wrong So why do you continue to live in such a society? Unless you've already left the UK in which case what are you whinging about? Ahh, so when Thatcher was in I take it you supported her every decision. After all if you didn't like it you should have left. Why dont we have the U.S. System where you get a referendum on taxes? Or the Swedish system where they get a referendum on pretty much everything? (Yet again) Taxes levied on motor vehicles and their use is not hypothecated. (Yet again), this is unfair theft and discrimination against the poor. The poor can't afford to run motor vehicles. |
Crossrail a poor buy?
Paul Weaver wrote the following in:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 09:31:30 +0000, Cast_Iron wrote: So by that argument high wage earners in London payting higher a\mounts of income and other taxes shouldn't contribute to the unemployed of other parts of the UK? No. Tax is evil, social security is evil, and subsidising rail is evil. We live in a society where we all pay in to a central pot and everyone benefits from that central pot. And that society is wrong So what society would you think is right? One where the poor starve, the sick die and the rich get richer? On a different theme, why is building a new railway "subsidy" and a road "investement"? They're both for the same purpose. Except car drivers pay £30bn a year in taxes through Car tax and petrol tax, yet only see £5bn investment in roads. Probably partly because there are lots of other costs caused by cars, for example pollution, illness (asthma etc.) and injury (accidents etc.). In reality train users should be paying something like £150pw for a travel card for zone 1 alone. And you think that making public transport inaccessible to the vast majority of people would be a good thing? Do you think it would somehow benefit society? -- message by Robin May, consumer of liquids If bathroom means toilet in America, I'll have a shower please. Hacker is to computer as boy racer is to Ford Escort. |
Crossrail a poor buy?
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
... The poor can't afford to run motor vehicles. In country areas, the poor can't afford not to run motor vehicles. -- Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org E-mail: URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/ |
Crossrail a poor buy?
In article , Colin
wrote: "Michael Bell" wrote in message ... In article , Colin wrote: "Michael Bell" wrote in message ... I have been told that a parliamentary commsission judged that Crossrail was poor value for money. Can anybody confirm this? -- Michael Bell That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard' and anti-subsidy agenda. Things have somewhat progressed since then. Colin Saying that they don't want it in their back yard is quite a different thing from saying that it is "poor value for money". Saying that it is "poor value for money" at least accepts the idea that it can be right to spend money, but that the money might be better spent on other things, eg making better use of what's already there by creating interchange where routes cross over each other without interchange, there must be several dozen such sites in London. And there must be many other serious contenders for available funds. AS REPORTED TO ME, the judgement was made that Crossrail did not rank high against such competitors even within London. So why is there such a push for it? -- Michael Because the people with the money want it to happen: http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/our_s...rail_response_ 09_02.pdf Quote: "The construction of Crossrail is vital for the future success of London as a world-class city." Colin "Because the people with the money want it to happen:" They want to spend other people's money on a project for their own benefit? That's corruption! Or is it simple setting aside of all economic calculation and Wider then and wider, shall thy bounds be set God who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet! Something like that? Micahel Bell -- |
Crossrail a poor buy?
Michael Bell wrote in
: In article , Steve wrote: [snip] If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes of London business and commuters. You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Londoners massively subsidise the rest of the UK with their tax outlay - something that Ken is always quick to highlight. Crossrail would only go a small way to redress the huge historic inbalance. Perhaps London should go independent and keep all our tax revenue to ourselves - then you'd be sorry! While this is true in pure numbers terms, the wealth of this country that Londoner's pay themselves for (mis)managing was never generated in London. There has been a series of articles in the Guardian newspaper recently on this topic (all available on the Guardian web site, so you can look at it), and the conclusion is that London does get slightly more money spent on it per head than the rest of the country, but that's not the question I asked, which is, "Is it true that Crossrail has been judged Poor Value for Money? And on what grounds?" Sure but this is usenet and besides, my post was about whether, despite London 'generating' more wealth than the rest of the country, that wealth really belongs to London. Now please keep up :-) |
Crossrail a poor buy?
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:23:23 +0000, Cast_Iron wrote:
(Yet again), this is unfair theft and discrimination against the poor. The poor can't afford to run motor vehicles. The poorest people in this country - the ones living in places like the highlands of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall, have no choice but to run motor vehicles. Taxes make it hard. Not everywhere in the UK suffers the plague of being London, with public transport every 200 yards 24/7, and nowhere to park |
Crossrail a poor buy?
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:21:40 +0000, Robin May wrote:
And that society is wrong So what society would you think is right? One where the poor starve, the sick die and the rich get richer? One where taxes go into their own pot (cigarette taxes go to the NHS for example), where central government is tiny and only really concerned with foreign affairs, and all major decision and funding is done at a local level. Probably partly because there are lots of other costs caused by cars, for example pollution, illness (asthma etc.) and injury (accidents etc.). All of which has a tiny economic cost in comparison to the £25bn p.a. that car drivers are owed. In reality train users should be paying something like £150pw for a travel card for zone 1 alone. And you think that making public transport inaccessible to the vast majority of people would be a good thing? Do you think it would somehow benefit society? Do you think that charging massive taxes on transportation benefits society? Look beyond the M25 and you'll realise that the density of population isnt anywhere near high enough to support even a subsidised publis transport infrastructure good enough for people to use. |
Crossrail a poor buy?
In article , Steve
wrote: Michael Bell wrote in : In article , Steve wrote: [snip] If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes of London business and commuters. You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Londoners massively subsidise the rest of the UK with their tax outlay - something that Ken is always quick to highlight. Crossrail would only go a small way to redress the huge historic inbalance. Perhaps London should go independent and keep all our tax revenue to ourselves - then you'd be sorry! While this is true in pure numbers terms, the wealth of this country that Londoner's pay themselves for (mis)managing was never generated in London. There has been a series of articles in the Guardian newspaper recently on this topic (all available on the Guardian web site, so you can look at it), and the conclusion is that London does get slightly more money spent on it per head than the rest of the country, but that's not the question I asked, which is, "Is it true that Crossrail has been judged Poor Value for Money? And on what grounds?" Sure but this is usenet and besides, my post was about whether, despite London 'generating' more wealth than the rest of the country, that wealth really belongs to London. Now please keep up :-) That's a separate question, explain what you mean by "Despite London 'generating' more wealth than the rest of the country, does that wealth really belongs to London?" How do you determine "generate" and "belong"? Michael Bell .. -- |
Crossrail a poor buy?
|
Crossrail a poor buy?
Michael Bell wrote in
: In article , Steve wrote: Michael Bell wrote in : In article , Steve wrote: [snip] If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes of London business and commuters. You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Londoners massively subsidise the rest of the UK with their tax outlay - something that Ken is always quick to highlight. Crossrail would only go a small way to redress the huge historic inbalance. Perhaps London should go independent and keep all our tax revenue to ourselves - then you'd be sorry! While this is true in pure numbers terms, the wealth of this country that Londoner's pay themselves for (mis)managing was never generated in London. There has been a series of articles in the Guardian newspaper recently on this topic (all available on the Guardian web site, so you can look at it), and the conclusion is that London does get slightly more money spent on it per head than the rest of the country, but that's not the question I asked, which is, "Is it true that Crossrail has been judged Poor Value for Money? And on what grounds?" Sure but this is usenet and besides, my post was about whether, despite London 'generating' more wealth than the rest of the country, that wealth really belongs to London. Now please keep up :-) That's a separate question, explain what you mean by "Despite London 'generating' more wealth than the rest of the country, does that wealth really belongs to London?" How do you determine "generate" and "belong"? 'generating more 'wealth' - Tax revenues from economic activities within the region. Belong - as in people claiming that said revenue is subsidising the rest of the country - said people imply that it is their money, hence belong. My argument against is thus, this so called 'wealth' is simply commision from buying an selling the fruits other others labour, historically this was merchandise, now it is mostly holding our pension funds while taking a percentage per annuum. A small percentage of what they take is returned to the state, it is a percentage of this that certain posters are complaining about being returns to the rest of the country. Michael Bell . -- |
Crossrail a poor buy?
As Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:55:57 +0100 appeared fresh and rosy-fingered,
Paul Weaver wrote: On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:21:40 +0000, Robin May wrote: And that society is wrong So what society would you think is right? One where the poor starve, the sick die and the rich get richer? One where taxes go into their own pot (cigarette taxes go to the NHS for example), I'll vote for you if beer taxes go towards building more pubs. -- Arthur Figgis |
Crossrail a poor buy?
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:34:58 +0100, Paul Weaver
wrote: Why dont we have the U.S. System where you get a referendum on taxes? Why don't we have the US system where they subsidise their subway systems so they are able to charge cheap fares? |
Crossrail a poor buy?
|
Crossrail a poor buy?
"Cheeky" wrote in message
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:35:03 +0000 (UTC), (david stevenson) wrote: Cheeky wrote: Well ISTR a report in the Sunday press a while ago which noted that a 3mile rail tunnel is being built under Kiel for £400 million whilst a 5 mile tunnel in London is costed at £17 billion.... I'm sure that such a blind comparison is completely valid, oh yes. Why not bring the Big Dig into it too? Big Dig? Don't think we have them Oop North... They do oop north in the US, Boston to be precise |
Crossrail a poor buy?
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:28:34 +0000, Arthur Figgis wrote:
I'll vote for you if beer taxes go towards building more pubs. Actually beer taxes should go to funding police, street cleaners, and the NHS Alcohol affects department |
Crossrail a poor buy?
Why don't we have the US system where they subsidise their subway systems
so they are able to charge cheap fares? Fine, let Londoners subsidise it. Why should the welsh? |
Crossrail a poor buy?
In article , Paul Weaver wrote:
Why don't we have the US system where they subsidise their subway systems so they are able to charge cheap fares? Fine, let Londoners subsidise it. Why should the welsh? Or extend one of the tube lines to Cardiff :-) Niklas -- "IMO, the primary historical significance of Unix is that it marks the time in computer history where CPUs became so cheap that it was possible to build an operating system without adult supervision." -- Russ Holsclaw in a.f.c |
Crossrail a poor buy?
Paul Weaver wrote in message ...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:07:13 +0100, Colin wrote: That was the first time around many years ago, where the project was killed off by a committee of (mainly Tory) London MP's with a 'not in my back yard' and anti-subsidy agenda. Things have somewhat progressed since then. What, you call people that live in Manchester or Wales subsidising the transport needs of Londoners "progress". All government subsidy is the most definitely anything but progress, but when you charge people that have no benefit whatsoever, you become worse then Ken! If taxpayers do have to subsidise it, it should come out the local taxes of London business and commuters. Quite right. And all the tax money I pay as a londoner should go only to london. Wales and Manchester need regeneration money or money for new or metro lines? Tough ****, get the money from your council tax. Oh but wait , didn't the money for manchester metro link come partially from central government? How come you're not complaining about that eh?? Anyone can play the "Only pay for stuff in my back yard" game and a 5 year old can see the problems with it. Apparently you can't however so why don't you switch your computer off and go back to your crayons. B2003 |
Crossrail a poor buy?
In message , Boltar
writes Quite right. And all the tax money I pay as a londoner should go only to london. Wales and Manchester need regeneration money or money for new or metro lines? Tough ****, get the money from your council tax. Oh but wait , didn't the money for manchester metro link come partially from central government? How come you're not complaining about that eh?? Anyone can play the "Only pay for stuff in my back yard" game and a 5 year old can see the problems with it. Apparently you can't however so why don't you switch your computer off and go back to your crayons. Have you not heard of the Barnet Formula? Where even we in darkest Cumbria give so that Scotland and Wales are given 22% more from the general purse that everybody else. I've got to live on Selafield's doorstep ,I'll swap your house with mine any day, or is wingeing just your habit. -- Clive |
Crossrail a poor buy?
Clive wrote in message ...
Have you not heard of the Barnet Formula? Where even we in darkest Cumbria give so that Scotland and Wales are given 22% more from the general purse that everybody else. I've got to live on Selafield's doorstep ,I'll swap your house with mine any day, or is wingeing just your habit. Since I don't have a house but a tiny flat then a swap would be fine by me as I'm not the least bit concerned by nuclear power since I actually have a clue about it (unlike the 99.9% of half wits who complain about it but don't complain about the far higher level of radiation coming out of the smoke from coal fired stations due to the natural radiocativity in coal , but thats another story) so give me your address and I'll bring my stuff up next week. Btw , its spelt whinging". B2003 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk