2y ago

Govt selling off HS2 land at a loss to prevent future administrations reversing its decision

www.thelondoneconomic.com

Europe @feddit.de

CAVOK @lemmy.world

2y ago

Govt selling off HS2 land at a loss to prevent future administrations reversing its decision

www.thelondoneconomic.com /news/govt-selling-off-hs2-land-at-a-loss-to-prevent-future-administrations-reversing-its-decision-361302/

17 comments

This is a scorched earth approach to politics - if the Tories don't get to rule Britain, no-one does. It's not just Rishi saying he can't afford to do HS2 now, it's him saying that if a future government is able to find the money, he doesn't want them to be able to do it out of pure spite.
This decision is a microcosm of why these people are unfit to govern.
Sir John Armitt, chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission, said opting to sell the land was a “mistake”,
I hate it when malice is interpreted as incompetence. It’s not a mistake; they know exactly what they are doing.
....And enrich their mates?
- Who do you think are buying the land... A more cynical man than I might think this, was the idea all along; confirming that hunch would take more research than I am willing to put in.
- In this instance, almost of it will be sold to the famers from whom it was originally purchased.
  So though no longer having a planned train line through their land would restore the value of their farms, I don't know that it counts as enriching Tory mates.
  A lot of farmers do vote Tory, but many do not, and those who were forced to sell land to the state for HS2 by the Tories probably don't.
  So it truly is only to stymie future governments.
I wonder who they're selling it to.
I know people say that all politicians are the same, but that's really not true - this particular set of Tories are massively corrupt sacks of shit seeking to enrich themselves and their mates at the expense of the working people of this country.
But how does selling it at a loss prevent future governments from compulsory purchasing it back, at that cost?
- It just means more has to be spent to do so. It's to sabotage the costs of going back on their decision.
  
  It would be pretty unpopular and therefore unlikely, but there's technically nothing stopping a law being created specifically to buy the land back at the price it's being sold for.
  Hell, since we're not in the EU any more, we don't have the laws preventing the government from just taking it for free, but that would be politically suicidal.
- They will sell it off cheaply. The beneficiaries will then sell it quickly for a profit at the right price. If people start building work on the land, then all this has to be factored into the repurchase price. It will mean court battles for each piece of land where there is dispute over the price. You will need very single piece of land to make the purchase viable. It is not like you skip a housing lot or two and just build a bridge over it.
- Because it's doubly expensive. A future government will have to explain why, when they've already lost money, they're spending more on the same thing.
  For sure they could do it, but the argument is worse this way.
- I wonder if the people they're selling it to have some corrupt business dealings with the people doing the selling. I can imagine this being a way to make a lot of money if you're corrupt. I have no reason to believe the Tories or anything but corrupts so I bet you if you follow the money you'll find somebody who just made a whole bunch
How do I ever trust this government ever again? As of right now, since they went back on their word about HS2.
Malicious stains.
Hydrogen Sulfide?
Edit: Sorry, my dyslexia is acting up.

17 comments