HS2 or H2O?

TruckerT

my daughter, who has more letters than an alphabet after her name, now has to choose between a senior job in the provision of a high-speed rail link north of London, and a senior job in the provision of a reliable water supply to the South and East of England

which would you recommend?

TruckerT

pqrdef

HS2 will be cancelled at some point.

With water, people will get used to a permanent hosepipe ban, but eventually that won't be enough. If they have to meter everybody's water, and they charge enough for it, they can keep it on the agenda.

TruckerT

pqrdef wrote: »

HS2 will be cancelled at some point. With water, people will get used to a permanent hosepipe ban, but eventually that won't be enough

Too true! A hosepipe ban is likely to be succeeded by large-scale industrial closures, and HS2 is likely to become irrelevant as capitalism declines

TruckerT

Road_Hog

pqrdef wrote: »

HS2 will be cancelled at some point.

No it won't. It is an EU directive. The Channel Tunnel was part of HS1 and there is already HS3 in the pipeline. It's all part of the transport policy which will include road privatisation and road charging.

pqrdef

TruckerT wrote: »

HS2 is likely to become irrelevant as capitalism declines

That may be when they build it. But every transport project goes through several cycles of cancellation, even the ones that do eventually get built. Every time they cancel, they disband the team, then start again later.

Pennywise

Road_Hog wrote: »

No it won't. It is an EU directive. The Channel Tunnel was part of HS1 and there is already HS3 in the pipeline. It's all part of the transport policy which will include road privatisation and road charging.

WHEN (not if) we leave the EU, the plan will never see the light of day again.

chewmylegoff

Road_Hog wrote: »

No it won't. It is an EU directive. The Channel Tunnel was part of HS1 and there is already HS3 in the pipeline. It's all part of the transport policy which will include road privatisation and road charging.

What have you been smoking?

There is no EU directive requiring HS2 to be built. There is an EU directive which says that if you decide to built a high speed rail network you must adhere to certain standards.

Graham_Devon

Kinda off topic I know, but was watching a piece about HS2 the other day. Apparently it's going to take 14 years to get this sorted?

Whereas the victorians built bigger projects within 5.

Jimmy_31

GIVEN_UP wrote: »

Well done on attempting to post a thread pathetically boasting about one of your imaginary siblings achievements. How crass.

Its going to be fun in your head when the clocks go forward isnt it.

Which voice is going to lose an hour, who decides which voice loses a turn on the merry go round of your mind.

Time travel is tricky business, watch what you are doing.

denvore

I'd imagine both positions have the potential to be political hot potatoes - which may prove to be stressful for someone in a "senior" position. Without knowing your daughter or the position she would hold it is hard to offer advice; but bear in mind that the benefits of HS2 will not be felt for some years and until that time there will be opposition to the project at every stage.

sabretoothtigger

Trains will increase in use as oil prices rise but only as a basic utility. HS2 sounds more idealistic then necessity

SE england will continue to do better as part of Londons link to global trade. I'd say water is the more secure job but it depends what part she is playing