A Cameron Miliband Clegg HS2 Christmas Song

A Cameron Miliband Clegg HS2 Christmas Song

They’re dreaming it’s a White Elephant
Each time they go to bed at night
McLaughlin lying cos HS2’s dying
Their nightmares now show all the blight

They know that it’s a White Elephant
With every veto that they write
May its noise be absent no fright
And may all our efforts make it right

Cameron’s worried it’s a White Elephant
There’s no one else who will invest
Where his eyes just glisten and none will listen
The public votes will be the test

Ed Balls knows that it’s a White Elephant
His no blank cheque just said it all
His stance may cause him to fall
And may his leader fail to rule without a ball

No related content found.

5 comments to “A Cameron Miliband Clegg HS2 Christmas Song”
  1. Again and again hs2 hiding the facts from our MPs and the public .No wonder no one believes a word they say ,they are not fit for purpose and should all be a shamed of themselves and be truthfully frank it is just a waist of our taxes when there are far more important projects needed than saving the rich a little bit of time on there journeys .the only reason this government wants to do away with first class travel is to show there ore people who want to keep there distant from the general public will travel on hs2 in other words the very rich just what they built Concorde for

  2. With all the floods and households being made homeless .government cutting costs on flood defences yet they have 50 billions to save time for the rich to go to on hs2 to get about .It just makes no sense..

  3. The AOS should have been about survivability not sustainability as impacts of hs2 are assessed to comment on the environmental statement. There has not been openness or transparency or meaningful dialogue with many local victims with serious losses to bear. MPs want to make England a country it may not be able to become. Over the holidays the UK was on the move by road and often only at 50 mph north to south and for rail not even operating and no snow.
    Perhaps if the Government want to keep England and some of Britain moving north to south we need a new Motorway along the east side from Scotland to London and the southern coastal ports. This could have a railway alongside for much of that distance instead of the limited Y HS2. Examine the alternatives in the HS2 environmental statement to see what a poor proposal this was for the nations future daily required transport needs. HS2 does not deliver capacity for commuters but simply bypasses some intermediate sections for vast expense and damage to areas convenient to HS2 and not with the bottleneck issues. Y is HS2 such a poor solution with obsessive MP support. Some lack of reason evidently in both chambers for self gain over common sense.

    .

  4. A simple template for people to change to add their main concerns in the Environmental Statement. It requires editting for your location and CFA section and issues. Better to state the concerns to HS2 by 24th January 2014 than miss the opportunity to state the reason for your concerns:

    HS2 Phase One environmental statement consultation

    Response Form

    This consultation response is submitted before the close on 24 January 2014 at 23:45

    These are either emailed to HS2PhaseOneBillES@dialoguebydesign.com or sent as a form to:

    The freepost address for post below has is used for some responses.

    FREEPOST RTEC‐AJUT‐GGHH

    HS2 Phase One Bill Environmental Statement

    PO Box 70178

    London

    WC1A 9HS

    The PDF response form on HS2 website did not work and this word version has been used instead.

    Information about the respondent is:

    Name to ensure this response is included. First name:

    Surname:

    Address:

    Postcode:

    Email:

    Confidentiality and data protection

    Anyone wishing to send comments should note that responses will be published on a publicly‐accessible website in due course, but we will not publish names, addresses and signatures of individuals. As it is not possible for us to check whether the substance of responses contains other personal data, you should not include information in your response that could identify you unless you are happy for it to be made public.

    If you do not want any of your response to be published you should clearly mark it as “Confidential” in the “subject” of the email or at the top of your letter. However, please note the following two paragraphs.

    Please note that all responses received, whether marked Confidential or not, will be passed on in full to the Houses of Parliament and their appointed Assessor, who will analyse the responses and make a report to Parliament. That report will not contain your personal data.

    I wish /do not wish my response to be confidential. (Please write your reasons below.)

    The Environmental Statement has been reviewed that is made up of a number of documents. The Non‐Technical Summary provides a summary of all the information contained in the Environmental Statement.

    Volume 1 provides an introduction to the Environmental Statement including an overview of the impact assessment process and consultation undertaken to date, and the main strategic, route‐wide and local alternatives considered.

    The line of route between London and the West Midlands is described in Volume 2, which has been divided into 26 smaller geographical sections called Community Forum Areas (CFAs) and each area is covered by its own separate report.

    Volume 3: route wide effects describe the likely route wide environmental effects of the construction and operation of Phase One of HS2.

    Volume 4: off‐route effects describe the likely significant environmental effects of Phase One of HS2 expected at locations beyond the route corridor, such as rail stations, rail depots and rail lines. This volume covers areas not included in the community forum area reports in Volume 2.

    Volume 5 contains technical appendices, including the response to the draft Environmental Statement consultation and the draft Code of Construction Practice, setting out baseline data and other technical information.

    These are the respondent’s comments on the Environmental Statement in relation to the Non‐Technical Summary and five volumes.

    Please find the completed consultation response form. It is expected these responses to the consultation will be provided to the Assessor as the actual text no by topic count and third party interpretation. A summary report that is filtered will not help inform Parliament’s consideration of the scheme as demonstrated in the previous consultations which have been examined for shortcomings, or which there were some significant shortcomings resulting in complaints.

    Question 1: Please let us know your comments on the Non‐technical summary. My comments for the Non‐technical summary are:

    There are conclusions and findings in sections of Volume 5 which are not the same as those included in the Non-technical summary. Perhaps field surveys did not produce the answers HS2 required or there was not the due diligence by the authors to read the evidence in Volume 5 and summarise the findings but to simply ignore the field evidence and the inputs from local people and groups.

    In sufficient work on the sourcing requirements for the embankment materials and too narrow a route with only one track each way. The NTS does not make the case for the route.

    This document provides a summary, in non-technical language, of the likely significant environmental effects of Phase One of HS2. These are mainly adverse, and the means to avoid or reduce adverse effects are being reduced with each stage by. Currently the allowances for mitigations are very inadequate and HS2 disregarded pleas to move the route to protect some locations being devastated and sometimes as with the Putlowes Fleet Marston area.

    This volume does not explain how dangerous the XXXXX will become.

    Question 2: Please let us know your comments on Volume 1: Introduction to the ES and Proposed Scheme. My comments on Volume 1 are:

    The same answer as for Question 1.

    Volume 1 provides an alarming introduction to the environmental statement for the location of our home and the farm setting at XXXXX.

    Changing the XXXXX will add to the risks to our traffic movements at XXXXX.

    Question 3: Please let us know your comments on Volume 2: Community Forum Area reports.

    You are welcome to comment on one, a number or all the reports listed below. Please tick the reports described below that your comments apply to.

    CFA 11 Stoke Mandeville and Aylesbury

    CFA 12 Waddesdon and Quainton

    My comments with regard to the reports ticked above including CFA 11,12 sections are:

    The route is wrong and Volume 2 CFA 11 and demonstrate there are great ecological and environmental losses for no local transport benefit. Suggestions to put a station at Aylesbury do not enable maximum use for such an additional investment.

    Ineffective communications have occurred with the designer planners and the people affected and much time with local authorities was also lost to determine full representation and to make real changes for communities.

    In many cases no interviews were undertaken on the issues with construction traffic. The reports to not describe in detail the significant mitigation measures that could be proposed for the purpose of avoiding, reducing or managing the likely significant adverse effects of the proposed scheme.

    Building HS2 Route 3 will make the location more dangerous for people visiting the farm and cottages and homes. The construction traffic will damage the current access roads in the worst location for farming operation clashes and with no bridge crossings.

    The Volume 2 documents do not represent the dangerous changes in local traffic and conflicts between construction workers and parents taking children to school and local workers and agricultural operational needs meaningfully and Volume 5 does not do this adequately using local knowledge.

    Question 4: Please let us know your comments on Volume 3: Route‐wide effects. My comments on Volume 3 are:

    The cuttings at XXXXXX require excessive excavation which requires significant movements of top soil to be removed to permit the excavated materials to be spread or bunded losing valuable pastures and arable land and recovered with top soil and drained. There are field corners cut to change farms and operational patterns.

    The statements on construction dust do not represent the impacts of much construction on and off the road experiences in country areas. The impacts of local agricultural and construction traffic together has not been determined for this Buckinghamshire areas and on the A41 and also the narrow lanes some of which have bad visibility and adverse cambers.

    The community section understates the cumulative congestion, incident and annoyance effects.

    Cultural heritage impacts on XXXXX have been significantly understated as identified in the Volume 5 as known by the local archaeologists. Better leave history undisturbed as mysteries of history not items in museums. Sometime imagination should remain the memory of ancient times.

    Ecology is not aided by HS2. Herons and Swans and flock of water bird occupy some of the current line-side ponds such as near the River Thame and Brooks. Adding more balancing and drainage ponds will only increase the accident and conflicts between trains and large birds.

    There are more current natural sites than are registered and these actual sites should be assessed on risks and losses to all assessed with the community not by short surveys..

    The heavy clays have extensive drainage and the route will severe many drains and result in more water logging and covering land with spoil will reduce the quality of pastures and arable yields.

    Sections of Volume 4 include statements that cannot be believed and the section on Sound, noise and vibration stating no significant impacts is not believable. Measurements carried out and comparisons with other railway locations demonstrate sounds and noise is significantly annoying up to 500m and sometimes to 1000m when there are reflections from footbridges and bridges.

    The Traffic and Transport assessments are not reflecting local impacts but statistical and descriptive changes. Inadequate assessment of accident black-spots and new incident and accidents from the increased activities are not made. The local traffic becomes dangerous with slight changes and this is not currently included in the road changes. HS2 will worsen the local road and lane journeys. HS2 results in poorer performance of the rural roads and lanes due to clashes and the wear and tear on poor roads.

    Waste and materials is a very under assessed sector of HS2 planning and engineering. No details enable careful understanding of the sequences of excavation and the locations and sizes of top soil and sub formation materials are not provided to access the impacts. The recycling and use of sub formation materials within embankments and the sources of the material for embankments is not provided.

    The Water resources and flood risks section is understating the regular flooding within the vicinity of the River Thame and Brooks. Flooding can put livestock and crops at risk and is not explained in detail. The impacts of runoff and flash flooding even in summer are now more frequent and this will remain so with the new jet stream behaviour.

    There is some concern from housing developments being increased by the HS2 which is not evaluated as being neutral with the increased side of route ponding areas which are very small compared to the extents of the collected and run off volumes witnessed in December 2013 for example.

    Question 5: Please let us know your comments on Volume 4: Off‐route effects. My comments on Volume 4 are:

    Not applicable but it is recognised that there are alternative routes for HS2 and similar.

    Question 6: Please let us know your comments on Volume 5: Appendices and map books. You are welcome to comment on one, a number, or all the appendices. Please indicate in your response which report(s) your comments apply to (e.g. the draft Code of Construction Practice).

    My comments on Volume 5 are:

    Volume 5 provides supporting information of issues with multiple sections and covering diverse areas of impacts that cannot be explored and assessed fully in a short time without guidance and discussions.

    Some planning consents and advanced works are detrimental to some farms and communities and local amenities

    The construction works adds danger of the junction and roads and the likelihood of accidents from the construction traffic using these is a significant concern. We appeal for a reappraisal of the HS2 location to be moved from rural Buckinghamshire please.

    We are concerned about increased dust and noise from the construction.

    • Question 1 second paragraph “In sufficient work [sic] on the sourcing requirements for the embankment materials and too narrow a route with only one track each way.”

      Are you therefore proposing a wider, three or four track line?

Comments are closed.

2010-2019 © STOP HS2 – The national campaign against High Speed Rail 2