Will the government’s proposed large infrastructure projects be sufficient to lift Britain out of a second recession?
You answered:
Yes
21%
No
79%
Forward-looking flying car specialist Terrafugia has unveiled a new autopilot-equipped STOVL concept which it says could be on sale in 8-12 years. But will the science-fiction staple of the flying car ever take off?
NASA chief Charles Bolden says that the agency is moving forwards with plans for a manned Mars mission, but there are significant ‘technology gaps’. Which of these is likely to be the most difficult to overcome?
Share
Readers' comments (26)
David Mayer | 13 Dec 2011 1:11 pm
This "statement" was typical of the sort of spin that Labour used to put out - hey, lets announce some Good News to bury all the Bad news. The projects would probably have gone ahead anyway. But whats this about a second recession? We haven't got out of the first one yet, by a long way.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Falch | 13 Dec 2011 2:11 pm
What recession. We are working flat out with decent margins.
There is a recession in the "public" sector, with a few surplus "cost" type jobs being removed every year.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10 Jan 2012 12:29 pm
Will the new high speed rail link still operate if there are leaves on the line?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Graham burke | 10 Jan 2012 1:08 pm
Why do these projects take so long? I will be 78 by the time this railway gets to Scotland! Why don't we use some of this unemployed labour and get on with the job. This is a great opportunity to give some new skills to some very needy young (and older) people.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
T Ward | 10 Jan 2012 5:41 pm
Great Britain is minuscule compared to the USA and yet over 3000 miles of track was laid from east to west by hand. We should be expert at railway building, after all we invented them. A high speed link from France to Scotland should not be a problem. By the time we have thought about doing something its too late. How can we put the Great back into Britain when we dither so. No mention is given to freight going on this line. Reducing freight costs etc. and getting it shipped out quickly. With such sums of money being invested all sectors should be considered.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JG | 11 Jan 2012 9:22 am
T Ward: Comparisons are odious. E.g the Brits + many Indians (real ones) laid out a fine rail network in India, a lot more humanely than those in the USA.
Budding/"frontier" USA killed "Indians" (native Americans, the owners, untitled), or at least dispossessed them and others with no recompense to get those very simple mostly at-grade tracks across the USA. A lot of the rest was "empty" desert etc I believe they also employed a lot of Chinese labourers on poor terms and with very few safety measures in getting through the rocky ranges to the west, nearly in California.
The current UK proposal will never go directly to Scotland. As proposed, there is already a gap where the quickest way will be to walk, along Euston Road. How daft can it get? All for London commuters as planned.
There are no proposals or slots for freight: carrying goods at that speed would be a misuse. It may free up some slots elsewhere for that.
They should start from Scotland, instead of London, if it's worth doing at all..
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter Meredith | 17 Jan 2012 5:07 pm
A relative of mine spent years in India and West Africa. He spent much of his time teaching the indigenous people how to lay railtrack and run trains at the start of the 20th century. I find it amazing that in 2011, we don't just get on with it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 17 Jan 2012 5:07 pm
Ref. All of the above ... agree mainly, but starting work in Scotland... consider the upcoming passport controls at the border.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Philip Baker - HV Insulation Engineer | 17 Jan 2012 7:10 pm
There are infrastructure projects that could lift the UK out of recession, but they must involve as wide a number of UK engineering sectors as possible, and ensure that the bulk of the expenditure is in the UK by UK companies.
This approach is called the " wooden dollar trade cycle ".
This means that although there is a cost, it is recycled within the UK and not an addition to imports, which is a direct transfer of UK wealth.
The main projects should be aimed at long term cost saving objectives.
1. The reduction of power consumption by smart control systems.
2. The production of sustainable base load power, from resources within the UK.
3. Our reduced dependency, on oil and petroleum products, which continue to be used by Global traders as economic blackmail that destabilise industrial economies.
Specific to the HS2 we should forget HS to Birmingham and upgrade the ECML to Scotland and service this direct line with other CROSS RAILS.
The time lost in the Cross Rails could be minimal and the East coast corridor, quicker by being direct. I live in the West Country and a few minuets earlier getting into London is always lost by the follow on journey, be it either by road, foot, rail or air.
The issue is carriages i.e. rolling stock
We need longer main line trains, with a minimum of 10 carriages.
Compared to existing units, that would already provide an increase in seats by 25%.
The carriage and rolling stock can built in the UK, and the fittings and hardware can be supplied by UK companies.
Taking the direct approach to satisfy a need, is always more efficient, saves more time and is usually more cost effective.
The alternatives, which are politically driven grandiose schemes, fail before they have even been approved.
So let’s cut the nonsense and get the UK engineering activity on the boil with infra structure projects
which satisfy real needs and benefits.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Robin Hood | 24 Jan 2012 1:24 pm
So, now that we know the results of the poll (which has largely come from the industry, I presume), what happens now?
Well, NOTHING I'M AFRAID.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
david waring | 24 Jan 2012 3:20 pm
Nothing will happen it never does. Nothing will halt the irrevovable descent of the UK to third world status.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 Jan 2012 7:09 pm
The money would be better spent on other projects with a more down to earth focus and spread the benefits wider than a single , vanity project just to save half an hour on ONE train route.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Keith Nuttall | 7 Feb 2012 1:41 pm
I really, really hope that this and other surveys are passed on to as many politicians as possible. I feel that the views of the 'real' engineering community are not getting through to government. The government seemingly accepts the views of a few 'experts' but not the majority of commonsense observations of the engineering community.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7 Feb 2012 3:12 pm
If my household income was innsufficient to pay all my bills. Would I. a: go out and seek extra employment to increase my income? Or would I. b: borrow some money and and repave my driveway to create work for myself (with imported bricks no doubt)? enough said.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Jenvey | 27 Mar 2012 2:00 pm
I agree with a previous comment - what recession? We also are flat out, as are most of our suppliers and customers. Right now, it feals more like a boom.
As for the infrastructure, we should do things on their merit and affordability only.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Waring | 4 Apr 2012 11:06 am
The Government Infrastructure Projects will provide no benefit to the UK economy with the Governments predeliction for giving work to foreign owned or foreign based companies to enhance foreign travel opportunities for its procurement agencies..
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mike | 10 Apr 2012 3:22 pm
Pointless exercise and waste of public money.
Start by helping businesses at present to employ people.
Get kids to look upon Engineering as a skill, and not some second rate job that is fostered by some Engineers and Employers at present offering and accepting second rate wages and less than they could get on a production line.
Put the capital E back into Engineering rather than engineering as a catch all phrase for a mechanics job.
Clobbering Public sector workers and the unemployed and sick does nothing for the country as a whole, Stop penalising workers or those attempting to find work, by reducing money to such an extent that you force people into a financial trap, whereby they cannot get work, because they cannot afford to get to work, or indeed if they find small amounts of work, penalise them for doing so.
Actually stop trying to flood London with a populace that the district cannot cope with both in natural resources(water drought) and housing, and create jobs in the whole of the country, not just a small area.
Lets face it, London had little to do with the Industrial Revolution, other than people moving there for high society reasons.
Get away from this archaic notion that fast transport is key to a good economy, I would rather have reliable and well timed transport any day.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24 Apr 2012 1:51 pm
I agreed with Phillip Baker said. What ever happened to Bristish Industries. When I first came to the UK we have British manufactured cars like Austin, Rover and Triumph . Electronics products from GEC and Bush. Now all gone. Sad what my adopted country come to. Really worried about the future generation
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 24 Apr 2012 4:00 pm
Yes. Austin, Rover, Triumph. All gone. Funny that.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stephen B Whiteley | 25 Apr 2012 12:10 pm
Few of the above comments seem to address the question of foreign ownership of British business. The success of Tata owning Jaguar Landrover and BMW owning the Mini sends a warning that British managers are incompetent. We need to understand why this is happening and work out how the situation can be improved for the benefit of our economy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
DOUGLAS BEAZER | 2 May 2012 1:54 pm
HS2
In this time of savings trying to be made on energy, expenditure and time which eventually could be beneficial to everyone, surely the most economical form of transport must be the train. We have in the past had a very good national rail network which was in large torn apart by politicians for apparent economic reasons and now we are trying to in some way update our rail infrastructure. On aspect of this improvement is to make travel between population centres better which can be done in a variety of ways including speed, length of trains and frequency of services. I am sure we need linkage between north and south as much as east to west but everything seems to be centred on London. There is, I believe, a strong case for High Speed Rail going north and I support this in order that the larger part of the population can travel directly to Europe and beyond, without the requirement of stopping in London. I feel sure, from many of the comments which have been raised that much of the doubt and opposition for HS2 comes from peoples living in the area of the proposed line. Lines have in the past, been built and operated and we now accept them as part of the countryside, the same will become of HS2 as has happened with HS1 in Kent. In terms of expenditure the line should be planned now to go certainly to Leeds/Manchester and also to Edinburgh/Glasgow, infact I would agree with some schools of thought that construction should start from Scotland and the North as opposed to always starting projects in London. Some would argue that spending large amounts of money cannot be justified, but compared to the £16bn being spent on Crossrail and £6bn on Thameslink (again for London) other rail projects would benefit the larger population of the United Kingdom. I also feel that money should be spent on improving the rail network outside London, with its congestion and high charges, so that we are not so reliant on London being the hub of all our travel.
Douglas Beazer
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23 May 2012 10:39 pm
About the Nuclear Waste Deposit vote on cumbria. NIREX in the 1990's explored loads of boreholes and a White paper was leaked to the effect the area was unsuitable. Yet nearly a decade later another group turn up and try to do the same thing. Do they really want to spoil such a beautiful area as it is so close to the National Park not that far from Wasdale and Scafell. By heaven if the stuff leaked there would be all hell to pay.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19 Jun 2012 1:36 pm
How much could the ludicrously inflated costs of these infrastructure projects be reduced if the three million doing nothing on inflated public sector salaries followed by inflated public sector pensions were made to work at these projects ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steve Coley | 3 Jul 2012 2:56 pm
Only one thing is absolutley obvious, an economy cannot be sustained by the financial sector only, it has to have a manufacturing base. There are people who are suited to office work and people who are suited to manual work. Get the banks to suport SME's and regen the car manufacturing industries in the UK. Every great economy builds automobiles. It is where we create new ideas and technologies and get the interest of kids leaving school. MP's!! It is not rocket sience to fix our economy it just needs the will and the ability to understand long term sustainable growth. The MP's would learn a lot from gardeners about long term sustainable growth.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steve Coley | 3 Jul 2012 4:31 pm
With regard to London being the hub of all our travel (HS2). The reason is simple the financial sector is there! All the money is there! All the high paid jobs are there even during a reccession!! All the power is there! Want to change it?? Well you can't not with-out investing in people and manufacturing.
As we own RBS why did the government not give the bail out money only to RBS and insist that the money be used to promote growth and give low cost loans tied to growth and employment to SME's. Also if the governement is serious about growth and reducing the deficit and dole queues, they should reduce if not abolish corporation tax on companies with less than £2 million turn over. If they want a proviso, it can be that the company must employ extra people in order to qualify for the reduction or removal. This would then give the money directly to business and reduce the dole queues. Money in the governments hands does no good it needs to spent right and target those areas where it will do the most good successive governments have proved they do not have the knowlege or expertise required and all parties are as bad. I have been working all my life I have seen Labour and Conservatives alike tossing our lives between them like some demented clown juggling act. I have seen Liberals being liberal and sitting on the fence and siding with who ever gave the nearest manifesto to their agenda which is mostly untenable. Money when it is availble should go into new technology which is where the future is at. At fifty eight years old I still have a hunger for engineering and to see Great Britain's people do what they are good at.. inventing and making things...Ok rant over!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave | 3 Jul 2012 9:32 pm
"Will the new high speed rail link still operate if there are leaves on the line?
"
No of course not they will be specially developed high speed leaves!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment