Tory Euro MP: High Speed 2 will trample Sir John Hampden's legacy (From This Is Local London)

errrr.......just woken up have you James Nadal - The Telegraph article referred to appeared a full week ago - do keep up! Daniel Hannan is a maverick within the Conservative Party and carries no influence in Westminster, where believe it not (despite the hysterical paranoia emanating from some within the europhobic fringe of the party) the decision on the future of HS2 will be made, via a Hybrid Bill legislative instrument. So Daniel Hannan might like to give the impression that he has some clout but the reality is very different - still I'm sure it was a nice night out for him, preaching to the converted. Meanwhile back on planet reality, Martin Tett and his merry band of anti-HS2 fanatics are busy spending local council taxpayers money on a futile legal challenge - the best part of £400,000 across the councils concerned. Now that is a matter worthy of local discussion!

Clown alert.

What rubbish. The supposed 'important heritage land' has already been given over to being a golf course by the estate years ago! And I'm sure a lot of it is now covered in house development! What's more the local authorities fully agreed to the above trashing of heritage land. Im not sure how HS2 would damage land that has already be destroyed by these very individuals. A newspaper should be about NEWS not local spin!

It is appalling that Bucks County Council is spending over £200k to date (not including staff salaries) to attempt to stop HS2.

Tett is obviously an "attension seeker", id he any relation to Lesley Clarke of WDC? i wonder.

This article is a load of c**p, a bunch of "nit pickers" trying very hard to dig up dirt as much as possible.

In my book this is called "DESPERATION".


TETT should resign.

Out of the whole of the UK, and the poor number of replies to HS2 consultation (55,000) a grand total of 871 people mentioned something about the impacts of HS2 on heritage - ALONG THE WHOLE ROUTE!. The data shows that ONLY 39 PEOPLE (YES 39) from the whole of the UK made comment about Hartwell House.

How predictable - more Anti HS2 propoganda served up for the vocal minority in Buckinghamshire.

Again more myths and distorted facts from the Anti HS2 lobby. This MEP is a total clown with Tett the Bucks CC self-publicity machine who steals council taxes from reserves to fund his political Anti HS2 campaign.

Here is a fact often over looked by the Buckinghamshire vocal minority - HS2 will run through 13 miles of the Chilterns Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) but less than 2 miles will be at or above surface level.

From the whole of the uk only 1269 people bothered to make comment in their responses to HS2 on the Chilterns AONB landscape

padav wrote:
errrr.......just woken up have you James Nadal - The Telegraph article referred to appeared a full week ago - do keep up! Daniel Hannan is a maverick within the Conservative Party and carries no influence in Westminster, where believe it not (despite the hysterical paranoia emanating from some within the europhobic fringe of the party) the decision on the future of HS2 will be made, via a Hybrid Bill legislative instrument. So Daniel Hannan might like to give the impression that he has some clout but the reality is very different - still I'm sure it was a nice night out for him, preaching to the converted. Meanwhile back on planet reality, Martin Tett and his merry band of anti-HS2 fanatics are busy spending local council taxpayers money on a futile legal challenge - the best part of £400,000 across the councils concerned. Now that is a matter worthy of local discussion!

I think you'll find that Mr Hannan carries considerable influence with MEPs, MPs alike; he also carries and commands considerable influence and respect amongst Conservative grass roots supporters.

miccles wrote:
Tett is obviously an "attension seeker", id he any relation to Lesley Clarke of WDC? i wonder.

This article is a load of c**p, a bunch of "nit pickers" trying very hard to dig up dirt as much as possible.

In my book this is called "DESPERATION".


TETT should resign.

But evidently there is dirt to be dug isn't there?

Do me a favour @Wayneo - the passage of the Hybrid Bill is a matter exclusively for Westminster - I'm not sure which planet you are living on but it doesn't seem connected with reality - Daniel Hannan has NO significant influence to speak of in Westminster - within his own party circles in the European arena he is regarded as something of a circus act, amusing yes, valued no!

wayneo wrote:

miccles wrote:
Tett is obviously an "attension seeker", id he any relation to Lesley Clarke of WDC? i wonder.

This article is a load of c**p, a bunch of "nit pickers" trying very hard to dig up dirt as much as possible.

In my book this is called "DESPERATION".


TETT should resign.

But evidently there is dirt to be dug isn't there?

As i said, digging up dirt is a sad sign of "Desperation", and thats what these people are "Desperate".

Pro trolls out again then. Instead of reasoned argument lets just insult and abuse as many anti people as possible instead of working with people to get the right solution for the country. Funding against HS2 is to save the county £51m and the country over £30bn. I do not hear these people decrying Birmingham City Council spending thousands on promotion of their "we support hs2" campaign.

Lizzy Williams wrote:
Pro trolls out again then. Instead of reasoned argument lets just insult and abuse as many anti people as possible instead of working with people to get the right solution for the country. Funding against HS2 is to save the county £51m and the country over £30bn. I do not hear these people decrying Birmingham City Council spending thousands on promotion of their "we support hs2" campaign.

I have a reasoned argument for you. I strongly object to my expensive council taxes being misused as part of the political Anti HS2 campaign. I understand that the County Council has confirmed it has spent £40,000 on the fight against HS2, having previously agreed to make £500,000 available over a 3 year period. This spend needs to reconsidered. It is criminal to spend so much on an unwinnable legal battle to stop the project when HS2 will go ahead as a national transport infrastructure project that benefits the whole nation. Also Councils were consulted!!
If you and objectors want to democratically oppose something then you pay for it - personally. It is totally wrong to use council taxes to fund such a campaign. By all means ask for voluntary contributions but Anti HS2 must not use my council taxes that I paid in good faith for education, housing, libraries, police/fire etc. And not for funding Tett and his useless political crusade, that he knows is doomed to fail.

Lizzy Williams wrote:
Pro trolls out again then. Instead of reasoned argument lets just insult and abuse as many anti people as possible instead of working with people to get the right solution for the country. Funding against HS2 is to save the county £51m and the country over £30bn. I do not hear these people decrying Birmingham City Council spending thousands on promotion of their "we support hs2" campaign.

Hmmm..trolls eh? How about answering a few of the points raised instead of insulting people. Becaude you never do, do you Lizzy? Anyone who disagrees with you must be trolling. Fact is, you have nothing to say in response to the pointd raised about democratic accountability of a local councillor who is burning his way through thousands of pounds of everyone's money.

Many of Stop HS2 were demanding that Cheryl Gillan resign; why does Martin Tett not resign and stand against the Tories in Bucks?

The way the Stop HS2 people have turned on Cheryl Gillan is nothing short of criminal. Shows how shallow you lot are. It is Mrs Gillan that won the day in the Chilterns- she got her area more tunnelling at a cost of £millions. She has done more for Bucks than any other political person in Bucks. You 'Stop people' should be ashamed of yourselves!

@Lizzie Williams - actually I think it's quite reasonable to challenge Mr. Tett about why he is spending local council taxpayers money on this crusade - I've posed a question on the STOPHS2 site, picked up here; namely - did candidates now in office in the various local councils involved in 51M include a clear manifesto commitment, prior to their election, to pursue the policies now unfolding, ie. phrases along the lines of "we are utterly opposed to HS2 in its present form and we will use all of the resources at our disposal to campaign against its implementation in . If these manifesto pledges were signally absent, the current actions of the 51M Group could be construed as abuse of power and subject to the same process of Judicial Review now being pursued by Tett & Co - the only problem here being that the ordinary council tax payers involved don't have access to the same funding 51M Group are now drawing upon to pay for their futile legal challenge - I don't call that "Trolling" - I'd call it "holding your elected representatives to account for their actions!"

padav wrote:
Do me a favour @Wayneo - the passage of the Hybrid Bill is a matter exclusively for Westminster - I'm not sure which planet you are living on but it doesn't seem connected with reality - Daniel Hannan has NO significant influence to speak of in Westminster - within his own party circles in the European arena he is regarded as something of a circus act, amusing yes, valued no!Your slant aside, the passage of the Hybrid Bill is indeed for Westminster, in THIS Country however, Westminster is required to
:R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Pierson (1998).�Lord Steyn�"... unless there is the clearest provision to the contrary, Parliament must be presumed not to legislate contrary to the rule of law. And the rule of law enforces minimum standards of fairness, both substantive and procedural."
Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981)�Lord Diplock�"in exercising their discretion, as in exercising any other administrative function they owe a constitutional duty to perform it fairly and honestly and to the best of their ability"


Right to procedural fairness.

Greater London Council (1985)�Lord Justice Muskill identified four ways in which a decision might be procedurally improper, namely,"

1. Unfair behaviour towards persons affected by the decision.

2. Failure to follow a procedure laid down by legislation.

3. Failure properly to marshall the evidence on which the decision should be based. For example taking into account an immaterial factor or failing to take into account a material factor or failing to take reasonable steps to obtain the relevant information.

4. Failure to approach the decision in the right spirit for example where the decision maker is actuated by bias or where he is content to let the decision be made by chance"
Duty to consider all relevant material.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Nelson (1994)�"Not satisfied that the material before the Secretary of State was properly considered before the decision was taken"

quote]Dakar v Minister of Transport� "There may be situations when the Ministerial body has not taken any extraneous factors into account and has confined itself solely to relevant factors, yet there has been such a distortion and lack of proportion given to the weight given to these that the final result cannot possibly hold up and is therefore, completely unreasonable."


Secretary of State for Education & Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (1977)� Lord Wilberforce "The ultimate question in this case, in my opinion, is whether the Secretary of State has given sufficient, or any, weight to this particular factor in the exercise of his judgement"


R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Regions (2001)�Lord Slynn "It has long been established that if the Secretary of State ............. takes into account matters irrelevant to his decision or refuses or fails to take into account matters relevant to his decision .......... The Court may set his decision aside".

etc etc etc etc

padav wrote:

Do me a favour @Wayneo - the passage of the Hybrid Bill is a matter exclusively for Westminster - I'm not sure which planet you are living on but it doesn't seem connected with reality - Daniel Hannan has NO significant influence to speak of in Westminster - within his own party circles in the European arena he is regarded as something of a circus act, amusing yes, valued no!

Your slant aside, the passage of the Hybrid Bill is indeed for Westminster, in THIS Country however, Westminster is required to:
!
:R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Pierson (1998).

Lord Steyn"... unless there is the clearest provision to the contrary, Parliament must be presumed not to legislate contrary to the rule of law. And the rule of law enforces minimum standards of fairness, both substantive and procedural."

Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981)

Lord Diplock"in exercising their discretion, as in exercising any other administrative function they owe a constitutional duty to perform it fairly and honestly and to the best of their ability"

Right to procedural fairness.
!
Greater London Council (1985)

Lord Justice Muskill identified four ways in which a decision might be procedurally improper, namely,"

1. Unfair behaviour towards persons affected by the decision.

2. Failure to follow a procedure laid down by legislation.

3. Failure properly to marshall the evidence on which the decision should be based. For example taking into account an immaterial factor or failing to take into account a material factor or failing to take reasonable steps to obtain the relevant information.

4. Failure to approach the decision in the right spirit for example where the decision maker is actuated by bias or where he is content to let the decision be made by chance"
Duty to consider all relevant material.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Nelson (1994)"Not satisfied that the material before the Secretary of State was properly considered before the decision was taken"

Dakar v Minister of Transport

"There may be situations when the Ministerial body has not taken any extraneous factors into account and has confined itself solely to relevant factors, yet there has been such a distortion and lack of proportion given to the weight given to these that the final result cannot possibly hold up and is therefore, completely unreasonable."

Secretary of State for Education & Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (1977)

Lord Wilberforce "The ultimate question in this case, in my opinion, is whether the Secretary of State has given sufficient, or any, weight to this particular factor in the exercise of his judgement"

R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Regions (2001)

Lord Slynn "It has long been established that if the Secretary of State ............. takes into account matters irrelevant to his decision or refuses or fails to take into account matters relevant to his decision .......... The Court may set his decision aside".

etc etc etc etc

wayneo wrote:
padav wrote:

Do me a favour @Wayneo - the passage of the Hybrid Bill is a matter exclusively for Westminster - I'm not sure which planet you are living on but it doesn't seem connected with reality - Daniel Hannan has NO significant influence to speak of in Westminster - within his own party circles in the European arena he is regarded as something of a circus act, amusing yes, valued no!

Your slant aside, the passage of the Hybrid Bill is indeed for Westminster, in THIS Country however, Westminster is required to:
!
:R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Pierson (1998).

Lord Steyn"... unless there is the clearest provision to the contrary, Parliament must be presumed not to legislate contrary to the rule of law. And the rule of law enforces minimum standards of fairness, both substantive and procedural."

Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981)

Lord Diplock"in exercising their discretion, as in exercising any other administrative function they owe a constitutional duty to perform it fairly and honestly and to the best of their ability"

Right to procedural fairness.
!
Greater London Council (1985)

Lord Justice Muskill identified four ways in which a decision might be procedurally improper, namely,"

1. Unfair behaviour towards persons affected by the decision.

2. Failure to follow a procedure laid down by legislation.

3. Failure properly to marshall the evidence on which the decision should be based. For example taking into account an immaterial factor or failing to take into account a material factor or failing to take reasonable steps to obtain the relevant information.

4. Failure to approach the decision in the right spirit for example where the decision maker is actuated by bias or where he is content to let the decision be made by chance"
Duty to consider all relevant material.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Nelson (1994)"Not satisfied that the material before the Secretary of State was properly considered before the decision was taken"

Dakar v Minister of Transport

"There may be situations when the Ministerial body has not taken any extraneous factors into account and has confined itself solely to relevant factors, yet there has been such a distortion and lack of proportion given to the weight given to these that the final result cannot possibly hold up and is therefore, completely unreasonable."

Secretary of State for Education & Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (1977)

Lord Wilberforce "The ultimate question in this case, in my opinion, is whether the Secretary of State has given sufficient, or any, weight to this particular factor in the exercise of his judgement"

R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Regions (2001)

Lord Slynn "It has long been established that if the Secretary of State ............. takes into account matters irrelevant to his decision or refuses or fails to take into account matters relevant to his decision .......... The Court may set his decision aside".

etc etc etc etc

The HS2 did not just come out of nowhere nor was it materalised by spacemen! Councils and Parliament knew about it and were consulted. Thus Cllr Tett and 51M will lose and waste a lot of council taxpayers hard earned money (that could go on services that have been cut) to be taken up with legal fees in a fight that will not stop HS2!

@Wayneo - and the legal reporting details means what precisely - quit trying to hand down lessons in constitutional law and start dealing with reality - all of the issues you refer to and more will be common knowledge to the DfT/HS2 Ltd's legal team - does the anti-HS2 campaign really believe they are dealing with a bunch of clueless numpties - I look forward to the Judicial Review process falling flat on its face - at that point perhaps common sense will begin to prevail amongst the anti-HS2 brigade?

padav wrote:
@Wayneo - and the legal reporting details means what precisely - quit trying to hand down lessons in constitutional law and start dealing with reality - all of the issues you refer to and more will be common knowledge to the DfT/HS2 Ltd's legal team - does the anti-HS2 campaign really believe they are dealing with a bunch of clueless numpties - I look forward to the Judicial Review process falling flat on its face - at that point perhaps common sense will begin to prevail amongst the anti-HS2 brigade?

I agree. I am sure the Judicial Review process will falling flat on its face. Can I then have my council tax money back to buy some more services? I wonder if Cllr Tett will do refunds? I bet he wouldn't be so profligate with wasting our council taxes on legal fees if it was his own money.

I always try and be honest ( unlike the Campaign for High Speed Rail who amongst other lies used to claim that HS2 would " create a million jobs " ) and I will say that I wouldn't take an evens bet on legal action succeeding , even though the Consultation was clearly a sham. However the cause is a long way from being hopeless as portrayed by our Manchester correspondants . ....................
. The question is would the Chilterns and it's residents be damaged by the HS2 proposals as they are presently laid out. Without a doubt the answer is yes ( even though the odd person such as Carl Shillito from Denham - who also features on the Campaign for High Speed Rail website might be better off ) . ....................
.. Therefore Martin Tett is just trying to defend his patch and his people and if he is successful he will be a hero , as well as saving the country £ 36 Billion that we can ill afford.

The consulataion was not a sham. Did you put your your ideas forward? I did as part of the consultation. Seems to me that this is are more excuses for the vocal Anti HS2 lobby getting on the bandwagon. You had your chance so do not waste my council taxes with 51M taking on a pointless exercise to enrich the lawyers. If they lose, and they will, can I have my council tax back?

Of course it was a sham and yes I did put my ideas forward. I'll remind you that David Cameron gave the game away before the Consultation had even finished when he said something like the NIMBYS won't change our plans to a bunch of businessmen in Birmingham who like HS2 so much that they aren't prepared to chip in a bit extra in the way of business rates ( unlike the situation with Crossrail where business rate payers cover a third of the cost ). Mind you the Solar Tariff fiasco shows that the government has form when it comes to ignoring a Consultation process. The vast majority of respondents ( including me ) were against the scheme which was flawed because it was predicated in advance by a speed design of 250 mph and precisely what was the point of asking if the route is right if you then ignore 95 % of the responses.

How can the consultation be a "sham" if you responded? Oh sorry you mean you don't like HS2 going ahead so you now claim it was a sham because they did not take your view. Funny how many modifications were made to the plans after consultation or was that just fantasy?

Just get used to HS2 being a national transport infrastructure project. NATIONAL - not just parochial Buckinghamshire.

My views don't matter on their own. But despite the best efforts of the well funded Campaign for High Speed Rail which included the bogus "create 1 million jobs" claim and the ridiculous "their lawns or our jobs" poster campaign the fact is that the government did not get anything like the endorsement that they expected and wanted. I'm sure you know that there was a very significant majority against almost every aspect of the plans ( not that you would know it from Justine Greening's subsequent leaflet which says that she listened to the views of the public and makes no reference to what people actually thought ). ........ PS precisely which part of parochial Bucks do you live in.

@kingsnewclothes

What majority? What are you talking about?

It wasn't a ballot you fool it was a consultation!

But surely, when you mention significant majority, you can't be referring to the tiny 55,000 people (from the whole of the UK) that could be bothered to simply lift up a pen and respond to consultation are you?

Or should that be the massive total of 2666 people that could be barely bothered to mention the Chilterns?

Or the 'far less that 700' people that even mentioned Buckinghamshire?

Where is the majority you mention?

Hope this helps you with your calculation of your term 'majority' - using the figures above.

the population of Bucks is over 479,000

piran wrote:
The consulataion was not a sham. Did you put your your ideas forward? I did as part of the consultation. Seems to me that this is are more excuses for the vocal Anti HS2 lobby getting on the bandwagon. You had your chance so do not waste my council taxes with 51M taking on a pointless exercise to enrich the lawyers. If they lose, and they will, can I have my council tax back?

Well obviously you can't have the money back, it would have been spent but Bucks CC might win. The consultation was a sham because 55,000 responded mostly against the HS2 plans and the government has completely ignored the majority. As previously stated it is interesting to see why all the millions of supporters of HS2 did not bother to fill in the consultation, most likely because most people couldn't care less about HS2. Heres an idea because you seem to be so worried about people wasting 'all your tax money,' maybe you want to lobby central government and tell them to stop wasting large amounst of taxpayers money on consultations as they don't seem to take them serioulsy or listen to the people who actually take time to fill them out. Central government waste a lot more of our money than local government.

Chiltonian : No need to be insulting. It's not my fault if the Campaign for High Speed Rail flashmobs couldn't find enough people on the streets of Manchester and Birmingham to fill in their preprinted cards. Whatever way you look at it the "majority" of respondents were against the proposals. It wasn't a ballot but compare and contrast the reaction of Justine Greening with her response back in 2008 or 2009 when the Labour administration initially ignored the Heathrow consultation. What a hypocrite. ............... PS What bit of the Chilterns are you from , is it near piran ?

Personally I'd back David against Goliath any day of the week and twice on Sunday's!
...
A few hundred thousand £££'s against Billions is money well spent if it makes people think about what the value really is and the damage caused, short and long term. Agreed that the money was n't pre-allocated by BCC, but if affected local councils and residents do not create column inches (or hopefully miles) then who will? Certainly not a few MPs who have many other draws on their time and will be wipped and/or out-voted by the majority who are not affected.
...
I won't be affected by HS2 but really can't see the value and the business case does not stack up IMHO.

kingsnewclothes wrote:
Chiltonian : No need to be insulting. It's not my fault if the Campaign for High Speed Rail flashmobs couldn't find enough people on the streets of Manchester and Birmingham to fill in their preprinted cards. Whatever way you look at it the "majority" of respondents were against the proposals. It wasn't a ballot but compare and contrast the reaction of Justine Greening with her response back in 2008 or 2009 when the Labour administration initially ignored the Heathrow consultation. What a hypocrite. ............... PS What bit of the Chilterns are you from , is it near piran ?

I live in marlow

Nick1042 wrote:

piran wrote:
The consulataion was not a sham. Did you put your your ideas forward? I did as part of the consultation. Seems to me that this is are more excuses for the vocal Anti HS2 lobby getting on the bandwagon. You had your chance so do not waste my council taxes with 51M taking on a pointless exercise to enrich the lawyers. If they lose, and they will, can I have my council tax back?

Well obviously you can't have the money back, it would have been spent but Bucks CC might win. The consultation was a sham because 55,000 responded mostly against the HS2 plans and the government has completely ignored the majority. As previously stated it is interesting to see why all the millions of supporters of HS2 did not bother to fill in the consultation, most likely because most people couldn't care less about HS2. Heres an idea because you seem to be so worried about people wasting 'all your tax money,' maybe you want to lobby central government and tell them to stop wasting large amounst of taxpayers money on consultations as they don't seem to take them serioulsy or listen to the people who actually take time to fill them out. Central government waste a lot more of our money than local government.

How can 51M win? The challenge is fatally flawed. The councils were all consulted, HS2 was not a secret. You were also consulated but most of the vocal minority got on the band wagon, to be Anti HS2, in recently. Thus they cannot win and they know this. But for pure political gain are happy to misuse and spend council taxes on a complete waste of time/money. Now that is criminal because ONLY the lawyers will benefit.

I support HS2 and investment in this infrastructure project because I do have vision, am not a NIMBY and want this NATIONAL project to suceed for ensure there is a successful economy, post-2026. This is for my children and grandchildren. I will not get a lot of benefit from HS2. Thankfully my predecessors also had vision and invested in rail, roads, telecomms, power stations etc that I benefit from. We must invest for the future, we owe it to them.

piran wrote:

Nick1042 wrote:

piran wrote:
The consulataion was not a sham. Did you put your your ideas forward? I did as part of the consultation. Seems to me that this is are more excuses for the vocal Anti HS2 lobby getting on the bandwagon. You had your chance so do not waste my council taxes with 51M taking on a pointless exercise to enrich the lawyers. If they lose, and they will, can I have my council tax back?

Well obviously you can't have the money back, it would have been spent but Bucks CC might win. The consultation was a sham because 55,000 responded mostly against the HS2 plans and the government has completely ignored the majority. As previously stated it is interesting to see why all the millions of supporters of HS2 did not bother to fill in the consultation, most likely because most people couldn't care less about HS2. Heres an idea because you seem to be so worried about people wasting 'all your tax money,' maybe you want to lobby central government and tell them to stop wasting large amounst of taxpayers money on consultations as they don't seem to take them serioulsy or listen to the people who actually take time to fill them out. Central government waste a lot more of our money than local government.

How can 51M win? The challenge is fatally flawed. The councils were all consulted, HS2 was not a secret. You were also consulated but most of the vocal minority got on the band wagon, to be Anti HS2, in recently. Thus they cannot win and they know this. But for pure political gain are happy to misuse and spend council taxes on a complete waste of time/money. Now that is criminal because ONLY the lawyers will benefit.

I support HS2 and investment in this infrastructure project because I do have vision, am not a NIMBY and want this NATIONAL project to suceed for ensure there is a successful economy, post-2026. This is for my children and grandchildren. I will not get a lot of benefit from HS2. Thankfully my predecessors also had vision and invested in rail, roads, telecomms, power stations etc that I benefit from. We must invest for the future, we owe it to them.

I don't think you can say that a judicial challenge is flawed. If there was absolutely no chance of winning then 51m and now the action alliance group against HS2 would not both be spending money on a legal challenge. I am not sure that just because the councils knew about HS2 then a judicial review would be pointless, there are other points to argue. For example action alliance are challenging on the grounds that the government have not conducted a full environmental assessment. This is something that the government legally have to do before making a decision to proceed with a major infrastructure project. Once again I am not a NIMBY and I do have vision for the country, I just have a difference of opinion to you. I believe that capacity on the existing networks could be greatly improved at a lower cost, HS2 will not bridge the north south divide, it is not a good investment just like HS1 and as a country we cannot afford to add £32 billion to our national debt which at the last count was £1 trillion! I have children and I think it is totally unfair for us not to deal with the deficit now, reduce that before we spend even more money on a vanity project which they and possibly any of my future grandchildren will have to pay off!

Nick1042 wrote:

piran wrote:

Nick1042 wrote:

piran wrote:
The consulataion was not a sham. Did you put your your ideas forward? I did as part of the consultation. Seems to me that this is are more excuses for the vocal Anti HS2 lobby getting on the bandwagon. You had your chance so do not waste my council taxes with 51M taking on a pointless exercise to enrich the lawyers. If they lose, and they will, can I have my council tax back?

Well obviously you can't have the money back, it would have been spent but Bucks CC might win. The consultation was a sham because 55,000 responded mostly against the HS2 plans and the government has completely ignored the majority. As previously stated it is interesting to see why all the millions of supporters of HS2 did not bother to fill in the consultation, most likely because most people couldn't care less about HS2. Heres an idea because you seem to be so worried about people wasting 'all your tax money,' maybe you want to lobby central government and tell them to stop wasting large amounst of taxpayers money on consultations as they don't seem to take them serioulsy or listen to the people who actually take time to fill them out. Central government waste a lot more of our money than local government.

How can 51M win? The challenge is fatally flawed. The councils were all consulted, HS2 was not a secret. You were also consulated but most of the vocal minority got on the band wagon, to be Anti HS2, in recently. Thus they cannot win and they know this. But for pure political gain are happy to misuse and spend council taxes on a complete waste of time/money. Now that is criminal because ONLY the lawyers will benefit.

I support HS2 and investment in this infrastructure project because I do have vision, am not a NIMBY and want this NATIONAL project to suceed for ensure there is a successful economy, post-2026. This is for my children and grandchildren. I will not get a lot of benefit from HS2. Thankfully my predecessors also had vision and invested in rail, roads, telecomms, power stations etc that I benefit from. We must invest for the future, we owe it to them.

I don't think you can say that a judicial challenge is flawed. If there was absolutely no chance of winning then 51m and now the action alliance group against HS2 would not both be spending money on a legal challenge. I am not sure that just because the councils knew about HS2 then a judicial review would be pointless, there are other points to argue. For example action alliance are challenging on the grounds that the government have not conducted a full environmental assessment. This is something that the government legally have to do before making a decision to proceed with a major infrastructure project. Once again I am not a NIMBY and I do have vision for the country, I just have a difference of opinion to you. I believe that capacity on the existing networks could be greatly improved at a lower cost, HS2 will not bridge the north south divide, it is not a good investment just like HS1 and as a country we cannot afford to add £32 billion to our national debt which at the last count was £1 trillion! I have children and I think it is totally unfair for us not to deal with the deficit now, reduce that before we spend even more money on a vanity project which they and possibly any of my future grandchildren will have to pay off!

Really! Do tell us all about your detailed investment plans to create new transport capacity post-2026? Build more motorways? Upgrade current rail tracks (and completely disrupt rail travel for 10 years?), Build more cart tracks? Extend the canal system?

Those querying Dan Hannan's popularity should consider that he is one of the most influential posters on the Conservative Home website, much admired by grass roots supporters. Still nice try at attempting to smear his reputation. I for one am glad he is speaking out against HS2. He certainly represents me.

ChilternsBlue wrote:
Those querying Dan Hannan's popularity should consider that he is one of the most influential posters on the Conservative Home website, much admired by grass roots supporters. Still nice try at attempting to smear his reputation. I for one am glad he is speaking out against HS2. He certainly represents me.

Surely you cannot be claiming that as a Conservative MEP he has much influence?! Being a total hypocrite Hannan is happy to take all the allowances given to MEPs and be a Euroscepetic like most Tories but without any authority and responsibility. He is just joining the anti-HS2 bandwagon because like
James Elles, Martin Tett, and Jeremy Quin they have political self interest at heart. They did not say much a few months ago during HS2 consultation but now think they can benefit from supporting a vocal minority.

piran wrote:

kingsnewclothes wrote:
Chiltonian : No need to be insulting. It's not my fault if the Campaign for High Speed Rail flashmobs couldn't find enough people on the streets of Manchester and Birmingham to fill in their preprinted cards. Whatever way you look at it the "majority" of respondents were against the proposals. It wasn't a ballot but compare and contrast the reaction of Justine Greening with her response back in 2008 or 2009 when the Labour administration initially ignored the Heathrow consultation. What a hypocrite. ............... PS What bit of the Chilterns are you from , is it near piran ?

I live in marlow

Amersham!

kingsnewclothes wrote:
I always try and be honest ( unlike the Campaign for High Speed Rail who amongst other lies used to claim that HS2 would " create a million jobs " ) and I will say that I wouldn't take an evens bet on legal action succeeding , even though the Consultation was clearly a sham. However the cause is a long way from being hopeless as portrayed by our Manchester correspondants . .................... . The question is would the Chilterns and it's residents be damaged by the HS2 proposals as they are presently laid out. Without a doubt the answer is yes ( even though the odd person such as Carl Shillito from Denham - who also features on the Campaign for High Speed Rail website might be better off ) . .................... .. Therefore Martin Tett is just trying to defend his patch and his people and if he is successful he will be a hero , as well as saving the country £ 36 Billion that we can ill afford.

Excuse me, but I have no direct financial or other interest in HS2 apart from the fact that I believe it will be good for the country. I have supported YES - The Campaign for High Speed Rail in a personal professional capacity and in my own time. I will only be "better off" if HS2 goes ahead in the sense that we will all be better off with a vastly improved transport system. The company I work for carries out a very specialised function and would only, if ever, be employed on HS2 when junctions are made with the existing rail network, and this phase is years away by which time I will be retired!

Carl@Denham wrote:

kingsnewclothes wrote:
I always try and be honest ( unlike the Campaign for High Speed Rail who amongst other lies used to claim that HS2 would " create a million jobs " ) and I will say that I wouldn't take an evens bet on legal action succeeding , even though the Consultation was clearly a sham. However the cause is a long way from being hopeless as portrayed by our Manchester correspondants . .................... . The question is would the Chilterns and it's residents be damaged by the HS2 proposals as they are presently laid out. Without a doubt the answer is yes ( even though the odd person such as Carl Shillito from Denham - who also features on the Campaign for High Speed Rail website might be better off ) . .................... .. Therefore Martin Tett is just trying to defend his patch and his people and if he is successful he will be a hero , as well as saving the country £ 36 Billion that we can ill afford.

Excuse me, but I have no direct financial or other interest in HS2 apart from the fact that I believe it will be good for the country. I have supported YES - The Campaign for High Speed Rail in a personal professional capacity and in my own time. I will only be "better off" if HS2 goes ahead in the sense that we will all be better off with a vastly improved transport system. The company I work for carries out a very specialised function and would only, if ever, be employed on HS2 when junctions are made with the existing rail network, and this phase is years away by which time I will be retired!

I don't think one rail link between a couple of urban centres can but put in the bracket of "vastly" improving anything.
...
Put the same money in electric cars and re-newable energy with "vastly" more charging stations and/or even car rentals/swaps between hubs and you might be getting nearer to solving green issues and transport too.
...
Think about Bois and his rental bikes, on a larger scale between London & Birmingham. There are many old manufacturing sites in Birmingham/Mancheste
r Etc. where a rental car-park could be established, as a multi-story incorporating subterranean storage/parking. All a train is, is a big park & ride scheme.
...
Let's think outside the box for a solution using less capital than £30+ Billion!

TheHorsesMouth wrote:

Carl@Denham wrote:

kingsnewclothes wrote:
I always try and be honest ( unlike the Campaign for High Speed Rail who amongst other lies used to claim that HS2 would " create a million jobs " ) and I will say that I wouldn't take an evens bet on legal action succeeding , even though the Consultation was clearly a sham. However the cause is a long way from being hopeless as portrayed by our Manchester correspondants . .................... . The question is would the Chilterns and it's residents be damaged by the HS2 proposals as they are presently laid out. Without a doubt the answer is yes ( even though the odd person such as Carl Shillito from Denham - who also features on the Campaign for High Speed Rail website might be better off ) . .................... .. Therefore Martin Tett is just trying to defend his patch and his people and if he is successful he will be a hero , as well as saving the country £ 36 Billion that we can ill afford.

Excuse me, but I have no direct financial or other interest in HS2 apart from the fact that I believe it will be good for the country. I have supported YES - The Campaign for High Speed Rail in a personal professional capacity and in my own time. I will only be "better off" if HS2 goes ahead in the sense that we will all be better off with a vastly improved transport system. The company I work for carries out a very specialised function and would only, if ever, be employed on HS2 when junctions are made with the existing rail network, and this phase is years away by which time I will be retired!

I don't think one rail link between a couple of urban centres can but put in the bracket of "vastly" improving anything.
...
Put the same money in electric cars and re-newable energy with "vastly" more charging stations and/or even car rentals/swaps between hubs and you might be getting nearer to solving green issues and transport too.
...
Think about Bois and his rental bikes, on a larger scale between London & Birmingham. There are many old manufacturing sites in Birmingham/Mancheste

r Etc. where a rental car-park could be established, as a multi-story incorporating subterranean storage/parking. All a train is, is a big park & ride scheme.
...
Let's think outside the box for a solution using less capital than £30+ Billion!

Sorry all theories - not practical. HS2 will be built!

piran wrote:

TheHorsesMouth wrote:

Carl@Denham wrote:

kingsnewclothes wrote:
I always try and be honest ( unlike the Campaign for High Speed Rail who amongst other lies used to claim that HS2 would " create a million jobs " ) and I will say that I wouldn't take an evens bet on legal action succeeding , even though the Consultation was clearly a sham. However the cause is a long way from being hopeless as portrayed by our Manchester correspondants . .................... . The question is would the Chilterns and it's residents be damaged by the HS2 proposals as they are presently laid out. Without a doubt the answer is yes ( even though the odd person such as Carl Shillito from Denham - who also features on the Campaign for High Speed Rail website might be better off ) . .................... .. Therefore Martin Tett is just trying to defend his patch and his people and if he is successful he will be a hero , as well as saving the country £ 36 Billion that we can ill afford.

Excuse me, but I have no direct financial or other interest in HS2 apart from the fact that I believe it will be good for the country. I have supported YES - The Campaign for High Speed Rail in a personal professional capacity and in my own time. I will only be "better off" if HS2 goes ahead in the sense that we will all be better off with a vastly improved transport system. The company I work for carries out a very specialised function and would only, if ever, be employed on HS2 when junctions are made with the existing rail network, and this phase is years away by which time I will be retired!

I don't think one rail link between a couple of urban centres can but put in the bracket of "vastly" improving anything.
...
Put the same money in electric cars and re-newable energy with "vastly" more charging stations and/or even car rentals/swaps between hubs and you might be getting nearer to solving green issues and transport too.
...
Think about Bois and his rental bikes, on a larger scale between London & Birmingham. There are many old manufacturing sites in Birmingham/Mancheste


r Etc. where a rental car-park could be established, as a multi-story incorporating subterranean storage/parking. All a train is, is a big park & ride scheme.
...
Let's think outside the box for a solution using less capital than £30+ Billion!

Sorry all theories - not practical. HS2 will be built!

I'll have a side bet with you then,...