Do you mean the Marshall plan? The UK got more than twice as much money in loans and grants as West Germany.

I suspect/speculate that West Germany and Japan benefitted more from (enforced) minimal military spending.

No, it was a third more, not double.

Quote ="IR80"No, it was a third more, not double.'" Aye, that is what it says in this article - fair enough. www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/mo ... l_01.shtml These use the approximately double estimate. https://www.marshallfoundation.org/libr ... countries/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan https://fullfact.org/europe/kawczynski-marshall-plan/

Quote ="IR80"No, it was a third more, not double.'" Aye, that is what it says in this article - fair enough. www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/mo ... l_01.shtml These use the approximately double estimate. https://www.marshallfoundation.org/libr ... countries/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan https://fullfact.org/europe/kawczynski-marshall-plan/

Quote ="Mild Rover"Aye, that is what it says in this article - fair enough. www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/mo ... l_01.shtml These use the approximately double estimate. https://www.marshallfoundation.org/libr ... countries/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan https://fullfact.org/europe/kawczynski-marshall-plan/'" loads of conflicting views, https://fullfact.org/europe/kawczynski-marshall-plan/, anyway, way off topic. But it does begbthe question, what was it spent on, was more infrastructure in GB damaged than in West Germany, did the restriction in allowance of spending on military mean West Germany spent it "better", did Great Britain "squander" large amounts on joining the NATO club and aligning itself with the USA, a very interesting set of questions and probably worth a thread of its own.

Quote ="Mild Rover"Aye, that is what it says in this article - fair enough. www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/mo ... l_01.shtml These use the approximately double estimate. https://www.marshallfoundation.org/libr ... countries/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan https://fullfact.org/europe/kawczynski-marshall-plan/'" loads of conflicting views, https://fullfact.org/europe/kawczynski-marshall-plan/, anyway, way off topic. But it does begbthe question, what was it spent on, was more infrastructure in GB damaged than in West Germany, did the restriction in allowance of spending on military mean West Germany spent it "better", did Great Britain "squander" large amounts on joining the NATO club and aligning itself with the USA, a very interesting set of questions and probably worth a thread of its own.

Seeing how Britain operates when there are large pots of cash and contracts floating around, I'd imagine there are generations of families who are still living the high life today from some of that money.

I completely agree with that - I know of one company that has become huge on the back of buying MOD land after the war very cheap and developing it

you seem to hate our country, why don't you go live somewhere else?

Quote ="IR80"loads of conflicting views, https://fullfact.org/europe/kawczynski-marshall-plan/, anyway, way off topic. But it does begbthe question, what was it spent on, was more infrastructure in GB damaged than in West Germany, did the restriction in allowance of spending on military mean West Germany spent it "better", did Great Britain "squander" large amounts on joining the NATO club and aligning itself with the USA, a very interesting set of questions and probably worth a thread of its own.'" I seem to remember reading that the UK aerospace industry was heavily subsidised by the US in the 1950s. As a result, we were able to develop the V bomber fleet, the Comet and a host of other cutting edge designs.

Quote ="IR80"loads of conflicting views, https://fullfact.org/europe/kawczynski-marshall-plan/, anyway, way off topic. But it does begbthe question, what was it spent on, was more infrastructure in GB damaged than in West Germany, did the restriction in allowance of spending on military mean West Germany spent it "better", did Great Britain "squander" large amounts on joining the NATO club and aligning itself with the USA, a very interesting set of questions and probably worth a thread of its own.'" I seem to remember reading that the UK aerospace industry was heavily subsidised by the US in the 1950s. As a result, we were able to develop the V bomber fleet, the Comet and a host of other cutting edge designs.

Oh, here he is, Gordon Gekko and his 'greed is good' mantra.

I just like to question things as opposed to just accepting the crap I'm fed. Smart motorways is another one. Someone will have been making a fortune out of those, and now they're on hold due to safety issues! Any regular motorway user could have told you when they first started installing them that they were an accident waiting to happen. You can't implement constantly changing speed limits and eradicate the hard shoulder and not expect major issues. Surely even someone so capitalistically blinkered as you could have seen that?

Its a trade off - hundreds of motorists queuing or use of the hard shoulder and the minimal risk of an accident - given how many vehicles use motorways how many accidents have there been with stranded vehicles - infinitesimal.

[iFrom a societal perspective the benefits . . . are probably worth a dead kid once a year.[/i

Yeah - bugger off to one of those European countries you love so much!


Oh wait...

And yet, the smart motorways were supposed to be modelled on part of the M42, where the refuge areas were 600 yards apart and not, as we have in some cases, every 1 1/2 to 2 miles.
Corners have been cut, that study not fully reviewed and the price is people being killed way to regularly.

Also and I dont know if any studies have been carried out yet, there appear to be many more long delays when lanes, quite rightly, are taken out.
These actually seem to make the hold ups both more frequent and longer than they were previously.

The solution, as it always was, is to reduce the amount of traffic on the roads and not to keep on encouraging more and more motorists to drive.
Improving our rail services would be a start and making kids walk to school.


Less traffic, healthier kids, cleaner air etc, etc

We have more cars on the road so we will get longer delays - especially when you have a police force who don't care how long they inconvenience motorists as long as they gather whatever evidence they think they need. These hold ups would be 25% longer if they didn't use the hard shoulder. Perhaps if their focus was on keeping the traffic flowing then that would go a long way to reducing delays.

Yes it would be great if all kids walked to school but if the school is 4/5 miles away is that practical. Improving the rail service would require billions of investment and the destruction of some brown/green field sites - the tracks have to run somewhere and stations need building. Leeds desperately needs a metro - how much would that cost and how long would it take? How long has cross rail in London being going on?

Interesting comments on the rail service.
I would suggest that this has simply been a secondary thought/neglected for decades and the lack of a decent East/West rail service in the North of England is verging on Criminal.
It's little surprise that considering the time to go trans Pennine, that most people opt to travel by car but, this is just a symptom of how mickey poor the rail service actually is.
My lad now lives on the dark side and travels over to us regularly but, a journey that takes an hour in the car can take over double using the train and that assumes they are not either full or cancelled.
As for the time and cost of creating infrastructure, much of the increase in cost, compared to budget, comes from delays in getting the plans through due to bureaucratic waste, which then further delays the project as they repeatedly go round the circle again,
HS2 being a prime example - perhaps we should hand over our capital projects to the Chinese ?

Our rails service is second rate in pretty much all aspects

It would be worth investing or even subsidising our public transport to help reduce congestion but, some of our politicians only see the cost in pound notes without considering the benefits.

The IFS have suggested that the Tories will indeed need to increase taxation in the upcoming budget or, they will break their own spending rules.
With Income Tax, National Insurance and VAT already promised not to increase, I wonder who they will hit ?

Pensioners and the well off ?

How many dead people until the balance of that trade is unacceptable?

Smart motorways are a scandal - as WC said, they have deviated so far from the original (successful) pilot that what is being built now, is nothing like what was promised; even the Tory transport minister of the time has said that he was, effectively, duped.

I've actually been stranded in the fast lane after a multi-car collision fairly recently - with no hard shoulder available - and I can tell you with certainty that getting out of your car in that situation is a genuinely terrifying experience; and an AA man told me recently that they are no longer allowed to attend in circumstances like that, without a police escort. Madness.

It's strange how the value of "a few lives" can be measured by saving a few minutes journey time.
One of the issues with the "smart" system, just as it was with the old style warnings, is that the advice doesn't seem to change quickly enough, meaning that you tend not to believe what is being shown on the overhead signal and so many motorists still ignore the lane closed signal and try to save those few extra seconds.
As you say, extremely dangerous and it is costing lives, something which NOBODY is denying - madness

What? Their core support? I don't think so sunshine!

No they'll hit all their new voters in the 'Red Wall' - after all, that's what they voted for so they're gonna have to suck it up aren't they?

There were 1800 people killed in traffic accidents in 2018 - there were 38 killed on smart motorways in 5 years - so if we take your point then stop all cars because if 38 in 5 years is too many then 1800 in a single year is surely beyond your acceptable level.

Surely if you get out of the passenger side and go over the barrier then things are not that terrifying? So you would rather increased congestion - the idea that public transport will increase capacity is a nonsense. Perhaps if freight was only allowed between 7pm and 7am that might help

Compared to people who die due trying new clinical techniques its miniscule - progress has negative externalities. About 100 cyclists are killed every year so do we ban cycles, significant numbers get killed in police chases so do we stop police chases. As I said its a trade off - the world can never be a perfectly safe place - we have to accept life will always have risks and for a benefit of the majority a tiny minority will pay the price.

Although I agree with your post, up to a point.
The issue here is that the smart motorways aren't as safe as the system that preceded them and more lives are being lost as a result of the change, changes that were made based on a flawed study.
I know that you post about the deaths being at lower levels than other road users (or medical "guinea pigs"icon_wink.gif but, those comparisons are just irrelevant.
You will also be aware thet the roll out of smart motorways has now been halted, which would suggest that mistakes have indeed been made and at the very least, further studies need to take place until the situation can be improved.
There is risk in everything that we do in life but, to knowingly increase the risk, for little or no benefit is just plain daft but, I'm sure that you know this.
Moving on, I think you may need to make some changes to your pension arrangements, as Mr Johnsons new Chancellor 2ill be coming after you sometime soon.

Not sure you are correct on the roll out - there are currently 6 projects on going and a similar number planned. I agreed if we can minimise the fatalities that has to be a good thing. Congestion costs billions and the idea that this should be increased because of a very few fatalities - some of which may well have happened anyway - there are deaths on hard shoulders on non-smart motorways - seems unjustified to me. I know I come across as an uncaring individual but I am a very practical individual who accepts the world isn't perfect. As I have said all these things is understanding the risk and setting a level you are prepared to accept.

If I had to rely on my pension for my long term prosperity I would be shafted - far more creative ways of developing financial longevity - I hope he does reduce to 20% - seems fairer to me.

Interesting that you take revenue above life as your priority. I would suggest that you have your priorities the wrong way round.
You'll be advocating putting kids to work and doing away with health and safety legislation next.
You cant choose faster flowing traffic, something that is questionable anyway, over human life, that is just bloody stupid.

You bring to life the lyrics from an Elvis Costello track, Tramp the Dirt Dowm, which was penned about Thatcher. "I never thought for a moment, that human life could be so cheap", it goes on "try telling that to the desperate father who's just squeezed the life from his only son".

As I say, written about Thatcher but, equally as appropriate about the Austere government that has heaped so much misery on the poor.

Thankfully our views differ significantly but, you cant put a value on human life, although some seem to view certain failings as collateral damage.

Using your theory about speeding up the traffic, we could get rid of zebra/pelican crossings and increase the speed limit in built up areas.
As I suggested in a previous post, we should make our rail system more efficient and encourage greater use of public transport AND have the best transport infrastructure that we can afford and generally travel less than we do currently.

If we take your view we would have somebody walking in front of cars with red flags - appropriate given you political leanings!!

I employ c300 people they are the most important element of my business keeping them safe is my number one priority - but I also have a responsibility to ensure they have a job and they can feed their family. Every time I send a driver out there is a potential that they will not come back - what do you suggest I reduce the risk by closing the firm? Delays on motorways upsets customers, increases costs and potentially put jobs at risk. As I have said its a trade off.

Even you will agree something needed to be done given what the coalition inherited from Labour - if you want to balance the books i.e. only spend what you raise then their policies were appropriate. Like you I think it went on too long and I actually think Hammond enjoyed that in a sadistic way. How else would you have dealt with it - don't say make Google pay more tax please!!.