I wonder if they deleted the one that they claimed was new but had already been built. – 9 years ago.
Omni-shambles.
>Government documents that were abruptly deleted after appearing online with announcements of new transport projects were just giving “examples” of what savings from the scrapping of HS2’s northern leg could be spent on, a minister has claimed.
>The documents detailed an extra £100m of funding for a mass transit “underground” project in Bristol. Mention of plans to invest £36bn in projects around the north and Midlands, including reopening Transport North East’s Leamside line, were also removed from the government’s website.
What a surreal explanation. They were announced as actual promised projects and are now quietly being retconned into “examples”. We’re used to political parties making promises they end up breaking but it’s a new low to make these promises at your party conference for good publicity and then quietly write them off immediately afterwards.
How many more such “examples” is Sunak going to announce over the next year?
Lemme guess, spending the saved HS2 money on ANY project other than their own bank balances was just an “example”, too?
Scum.
Ah, it’s the ol’ example announcement. We’ve all done that. I announced example as example when i really meant it’s a load of bullshit. BUULLLLSHIT!
​
At the rate HS2 is going, we’ll be better off trying to sell off the sea and draining it so only the rich can enjoy portions of the sea.
What I find most interesting about this is that many of these ‘examples’ fall within areas where devolved administrations will ultimately make decisions about how funding allocations for transport will be spent. This is coupled with words along the lines of “we know these are local priorities”.
Cynically, it strikes me that this is a political approach such that if those schemes do end up going ahead, the government can claim to have enabled that with the funding, or if other local priorities are chosen instead then they can lambast the (largely Labour- or otherwise left-leaning-led) metro administrations for opting to spend the money elsewhere. This applies to Bristol’s MTS, the Leamside Line in the NE, and essentially anything in Manchester.
The one thing that’s holding me back from this slightly tinfoil hat-ish view is that it’s difficult to reconcile the generally shambolic performance of the government with this kind of mustache-twiddling premeditation.
Low effort weak bullshit is the best they’ve got, and they can’t even manage to half ass that.
It’s such a sad indictment of the lack of both care and quality in this government.
Ministers making stuff up on the back of an envelope, while some researcher who barely scraped half decent A Levels despite an expensive education doesn’t realise the projects they’ve googled for ideas were done years ago.
7 comments
I wonder if they deleted the one that they claimed was new but had already been built. – 9 years ago.
Omni-shambles.
>Government documents that were abruptly deleted after appearing online with announcements of new transport projects were just giving “examples” of what savings from the scrapping of HS2’s northern leg could be spent on, a minister has claimed.
>The documents detailed an extra £100m of funding for a mass transit “underground” project in Bristol. Mention of plans to invest £36bn in projects around the north and Midlands, including reopening Transport North East’s Leamside line, were also removed from the government’s website.
What a surreal explanation. They were announced as actual promised projects and are now quietly being retconned into “examples”. We’re used to political parties making promises they end up breaking but it’s a new low to make these promises at your party conference for good publicity and then quietly write them off immediately afterwards.
How many more such “examples” is Sunak going to announce over the next year?
Lemme guess, spending the saved HS2 money on ANY project other than their own bank balances was just an “example”, too?
Scum.
Ah, it’s the ol’ example announcement. We’ve all done that. I announced example as example when i really meant it’s a load of bullshit. BUULLLLSHIT!
​
At the rate HS2 is going, we’ll be better off trying to sell off the sea and draining it so only the rich can enjoy portions of the sea.
What I find most interesting about this is that many of these ‘examples’ fall within areas where devolved administrations will ultimately make decisions about how funding allocations for transport will be spent. This is coupled with words along the lines of “we know these are local priorities”.
Cynically, it strikes me that this is a political approach such that if those schemes do end up going ahead, the government can claim to have enabled that with the funding, or if other local priorities are chosen instead then they can lambast the (largely Labour- or otherwise left-leaning-led) metro administrations for opting to spend the money elsewhere. This applies to Bristol’s MTS, the Leamside Line in the NE, and essentially anything in Manchester.
The one thing that’s holding me back from this slightly tinfoil hat-ish view is that it’s difficult to reconcile the generally shambolic performance of the government with this kind of mustache-twiddling premeditation.
Low effort weak bullshit is the best they’ve got, and they can’t even manage to half ass that.
It’s such a sad indictment of the lack of both care and quality in this government.
Ministers making stuff up on the back of an envelope, while some researcher who barely scraped half decent A Levels despite an expensive education doesn’t realise the projects they’ve googled for ideas were done years ago.