UK Politics Thread XI: Boris' Big Bombastic Brexit Bash

[Novus America]

I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian effect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

[Alvecia]

I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian affect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

Better be some pretty sweet trade costs reductions, else the ROI is gonna be awful.

[Salandriagado]

I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian affect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

Bigger bridges have been built between major trade cities. Not with one end at Portpatrick (population 960, nearest motorway 70 miles away).

[Novus America]

I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian affect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

Better be some pretty sweet trade costs reductions, else the ROI is gonna be awful.

I am sure the ROI is not going to be good, looking only at trade costs.
But if you look at it more like a New Deal style public works project and a way to subsidize key strategic industries it looks better.

[Novus America]

I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian affect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

Bigger bridges have been built between major trade cities. Not with one end at Portpatrick (population 960, nearest motorway 70 miles away).

Well yes, you would have to build 70 miles of highway too.

[The New California Republic]

I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian affect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

Looking at the farce that HS2 has been in terms of ballooning cost, folk are justified to be sceptical of the Celtic Crossing project.

[Vassenor]

I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian affect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

Looking at the farce that HS2 has been in terms of ballooning cost, folk are justified to be sceptical of the Celtic Crossing project.

Besides, Boris still has to make the Garden Bridge and Estuary Airport happen first.

[Salandriagado]

Bigger bridges have been built between major trade cities. Not with one end at Portpatrick (population 960, nearest motorway 70 miles away).

Well yes, you would have to build 70 miles of highway too.

And then all of the infrastructure necessary to build the bridge. And all of the various supporting infrastructure for an increase in the population of the area by orders of magnitude for years. And probably another motorway that doesn't go directly North. And you'll have to duplicate a good chunk of that work on the other side. The project just gets endlessly bigger, for what is really very little practical benefit. In fact, after all of that, I'm still not convinced it will be worth driving all the way to Scotland and back rather than going by sea.

[The New California Republic]

Bigger bridges have been built between major trade cities. Not with one end at Portpatrick (population 960, nearest motorway 70 miles away).

Well yes, you would have to build 70 miles of highway too.

It is proposed to be a combined road and rail bridge, so new track too. But there is track up until nearby Stranraer, so that wouldn't be as bad. At the Larne end there are nearby lines that could easily be extended.

[Novus America]

I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian affect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

Looking at the farce that HS2 has been in terms of ballooning cost, folk are justified to be sceptical of the Celtic Crossing project.

Oh it will go massively over budget to be sure. If you look at it as a profit making venture it its a bad idea. But if you look at it more like way to subsidize jobs and manufacturing, and possibly reducing support for Scottish and NI secession then it makes more sense.

[The New California Republic]

Looking at the farce that HS2 has been in terms of ballooning cost, folk are justified to be sceptical of the Celtic Crossing project.

Oh it will go massively over budget to be sure. If you look at it as a profit making venture it its a bad idea. But if you look at it more like way to subsidize jobs and manufacturing, and possibly reducing support for Scottish and NI secession then it makes more sense.

This is in the Brexit economic climate though. Budgets will likely be squeezed for the foreseeable, so I doubt it will happen in the next couple of decades at least.

[Novus America]

Well yes, you would have to build 70 miles of highway too.

And then all of the infrastructure necessary to build the bridge. And all of the various supporting infrastructure for an increase in the population of the area by orders of magnitude for years. And probably another motorway that doesn't go directly North. And you'll have to duplicate a good chunk of that work on the other side. The project just gets endlessly bigger, for what is really very little practical benefit. In fact, after all of that, I'm still not convinced it will be worth driving all the way to Scotland and back rather than going by sea.

Well the last part is the biggest issue. If no one uses it it is silly.

But after the project gets built it ceases to subsidize as many jobs or as much demand for manufactured products. So the idea of it being a massive long term project is not the worst thing.

Again if you look at this a money making for profit venture it is a bad idea.

But that does not need to be why. If you look at it as a welfare thing it makes more sense.

[Salandriagado]

And then all of the infrastructure necessary to build the bridge. And all of the various supporting infrastructure for an increase in the population of the area by orders of magnitude for years. And probably another motorway that doesn't go directly North. And you'll have to duplicate a good chunk of that work on the other side. The project just gets endlessly bigger, for what is really very little practical benefit. In fact, after all of that, I'm still not convinced it will be worth driving all the way to Scotland and back rather than going by sea.

Well the last part is the biggest issue. If no one uses it it is silly.

But after the project gets build it ceases to subsidize as many jobs or as much demand for manufactured products.

Again if you look at this a money making for profit venture it is a bad idea.

But that does not need to be why. If you look at it as a welfare thing it makes more sense.

Your problem there is that we have literal thousands of more useful infrastructure problems that need work on, most of which aren't in the arse end of nowhere.

[Novus America]

Oh it will go massively over budget to be sure. If you look at it as a profit making venture it its a bad idea. But if you look at it more like way to subsidize jobs and manufacturing, and possibly reducing support for Scottish and NI secession then it makes more sense.

This is in the Brexit economic climate though. Budgets will likely be squeezed for the foreseeable, so I doubt it will happen in the next couple of decades at least.

That is the thing, it of course flies on the face of austerity, but why is the UK still trying austerity?
Especially with record low borrowing costs and interest rates?

[Novus America]

Well the last part is the biggest issue. If no one uses it it is silly.

But after the project gets build it ceases to subsidize as many jobs or as much demand for manufactured products.

Again if you look at this a money making for profit venture it is a bad idea.

But that does not need to be why. If you look at it as a welfare thing it makes more sense.

Your problem there is that we have literal thousands of more useful infrastructure problems that need work on, most of which aren't in the arse end of nowhere.

I mean that is fair enough, if you were actually doing them. Sure the issue of any massive infrastructure spending campaign is what projects get funded and which do not.

And we could debate that.

The problem is you are not doing a massive infrastructure campaign in the first place.

[Shamhnan Insir]

... So what exactly is building this bridge supposed to accomplish?

Closer links between Britain and Northern Ireland. Which I guess it would accomplish in a literal sense.

One benefit is the real tangible increase in access and cooperation possibilities across the water yes, that would be cool.

Then we enter the more indirect benefits:

The "one-up-manship" benefit, where we have literally built a massive bloody bridge across difficult waters in a time where other twats are building walls, and building them badly.
Coupled with this is the grandeur of the thing. Think about it, the UK will have built one hell of a challenging infrastructure project which many would have considered us too far over the hill to do. It would be a monument to the engineering prowess we once had and may have again???
The local community benefits could also be considerable, especially if it was constructed in such a fashion to maximise demand for resources and enterprise on either side.

[Salandriagado]

Your problem there is that we have literal thousands of more useful infrastructure problems that need work on, most of which aren't in the arse end of nowhere.

I mean that is fair enough, if you were actually doing them. Sure the issue of any massive infrastructure spending campaign is what projects get funded and which do not.

And we could debate that.

The problem is you are no doing a massive infrastructure campaign in the first place.

The solution to that problem is not "push for a mostly useless infrastructure project". It's "push for the important stuff to actually get done".

[The New California Republic]

This is in the Brexit economic climate though. Budgets will likely be squeezed for the foreseeable, so I doubt it will happen in the next couple of decades at least.

That is the thing, it of course flies on the face of austerity, but why is the UK still trying austerity?
Especially with record low borrowing costs and interest rates?

The Tories are locked into this course. But Boris wants the Celtic Crossing, but I don't think he realises that it'd mean at least a partial backtracking on austerity.

[Novus America]

Closer links between Britain and Northern Ireland. Which I guess it would accomplish in a literal sense.

One benefit is the real tangible increase in access and cooperation possibilities across the water yes, that would be cool.

Then we enter the more indirect benefits:

The "one-up-manship" benefit, where we have literally built a massive bloody bridge across difficult waters in a time where other twats are building walls, and building them badly.
Coupled with this is the grandeur of the thing. Think about it, the UK will have built one hell of a challenging infrastructure project which many would have considered us too far over the hill to do. It would be a monument to the engineering prowess we once had and may have again???
The local community benefits could also be considerable, especially if it was constructed in such a fashion to maximise demand for resources and enterprise on either side.

Yes, project Apollo was not economically sensible from the perspective of profitability and ROI. It was more to do it because we could, subsidize industry and jobs, push R&D, unite people around a goal and yes look cool. Those things are not without value. Every since we cut infrastructure, military and space research spending from the 70s onward, especially the 90s onward (there was an uptick in the 80s) things have not gone well.

At a time when people feel divided, lost and without purpose such things have a value far greater than just the immediate benefits.

[Novus America]

I mean that is fair enough, if you were actually doing them. Sure the issue of any massive infrastructure spending campaign is what projects get funded and which do not.

And we could debate that.

The problem is you are no doing a massive infrastructure campaign in the first place.

The solution to that problem is not "push for a mostly useless infrastructure project". It's "push for the important stuff to actually get done".

The problem with smaller divided projects is they do not have the same social effect. They are not challenging nor interesting, and not transformative. And thus harder to unite people around.

[The Blaatschapen]

I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian affect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

Better be some pretty sweet trade costs reductions, else the ROI is gonna be awful.

Republic of Ireland or return on investment?

[Novus America]

That is the thing, it of course flies on the face of austerity, but why is the UK still trying austerity?
Especially with record low borrowing costs and interest rates?

The Tories are locked into this course. But Boris wants the Celtic Crossing, but I don't think he realises that it'd mean at least a partial backtracking on austerity.

Well that is the interesting point. This is completely contrary to austerity but austerity needs to die anyways. But it puts Boris in a bind. He cannot keep promising to spend less and borrow less while doing such projects as they go against that.

It would make far more sense for Labour to be pushing it TBH.

[Shamhnan Insir]

One benefit is the real tangible increase in access and cooperation possibilities across the water yes, that would be cool.

Then we enter the more indirect benefits:

The "one-up-manship" benefit, where we have literally built a massive bloody bridge across difficult waters in a time where other twats are building walls, and building them badly.
Coupled with this is the grandeur of the thing. Think about it, the UK will have built one hell of a challenging infrastructure project which many would have considered us too far over the hill to do. It would be a monument to the engineering prowess we once had and may have again???
The local community benefits could also be considerable, especially if it was constructed in such a fashion to maximise demand for resources and enterprise on either side.

Yes, project Apollo was not economically sensible from the perspective of profitability and ROI. It was more to do it because we could, subsidize industry and jobs, push R&D, unite people around a goal and yes look cool. Those things are not without value. Every since we cut infrastructure, military and space research spending from the 70s onward, especially the 90s onward (there was an uptick in the 80s) things have not gone well.

At a time when people feel divided, lost and without purpose such things have a value far greater than just the immediate benefits.

Indeed, the loss of real NASA projects and therefore dreams and goal at that time has generated a lengthy legacy that has not been beneficial. Sure, this may be just a bridge but as a concept it is a bold step.
Furthering the NASA mentions, parts of Ireland and Scotland were hotly touted as being potential locations for a UK based spaceport in the near future. I'll need to read up more to see if this had any further development, but it would be something to consider whilst planning this project.

[Liriena]

I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian affect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

Ok but hear me out... UK can have a little super mega hyper bridge, as a treat, but only if it's, like, a railway bridge for after the trains get nationalized.

[The New California Republic]

I actually do not hate the bridge idea. Longer bridges over deeper water have been built.
And actually infrastructure mega projects have a Keynesian affect, stimulating demand and creating jobs.

And if you mandate the steel, concrete and aluminum used be made in the UK it could help support those industries.

And it would reduce trade costs between NI and the UK.

Ok but hear me out... UK can have a little super mega hyper bridge, as a treat, but only if it's, like, a railway bridge for after the trains get nationalized.

It will be a road and rail bridge, according to proposals.