Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

my overall tax burden is rocketing right now, rising prices, more vat paid, more council tax, less services, less spent on NHS (in real terms) same with education and roads, so called indirect taxation ie insurance tax, airport taxes.... the £400 i ve just had to pay out for post 16 transport (and they say they encourage 16yos to stay on at school!!!) the crash in sterling because of brexit... i am substantially worse off under the tories.

Maybe you can tell me how this proposed 50 billion to the EU is going to be paid for?

If you're moaning now, see what happens if JC's lot get in and bankrupt us.

The 50 bn will need to be borrowed. But that's a lot less than a realistically costed estimate of what New Old Labour want to spend.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

my overall tax burden is rocketing right now, rising prices, more vat paid, more council tax, less services, less spent on NHS (in real terms) same with education and roads, so called indirect taxation ie insurance tax, airport taxes.... the £400 i ve just had to pay out for post 16 transport (and they say they encourage 16yos to stay on at school!!!) the crash in sterling because of brexit... i am substantially worse off under the tories.

Maybe you can tell me how this proposed 50 billion to the EU is going to be paid for?

If you're moaning now, see what happens if JC's lot get in and bankrupt us.

The 50 bn will need to be borrowed. But that's a lot less than a realistically costed estimate of what New Old Labour want to spend.

the tories are still continuing to borrow you know.... facing a revolt on defence spending cuts... now the latest is to claim back old railways and get councils to run them.... like they did in the 1870s.

look, i dont particularly think we need to start re nationalising everything but over time, buying back railways and the water companies would be a good thing, i d limit it to that though.

i like vfm and at mo, i m paying out but getting very little back, i d rather pay a bit more and get something for it, is it too much to expect to cycle on a pot hole free road? or have a weekly rubbish collection? a functioning library? or even a Police force that can enforce laws and are contactable.... today Durham Police and Crime commissionaire said they not the man power to stop small time dealing in cannabis... or last year when a friends house was burgled, the response was "here is a crime ref no for your insurance, we pop round in a few weeks to advise on crime prevention"

Lookyhere

Sincerely hope that May takes the Labour stance and finally withdraws the invitation to Trump, a poor decision rushed to appear populist with a POTUS who is clearly crazed and unfit for office.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/29/polit ... index.html

coopster_the_1st

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

my overall tax burden is rocketing right now, rising prices, more vat paid, more council tax, less services, less spent on NHS (in real terms) same with education and roads, so called indirect taxation ie insurance tax, airport taxes.... the £400 i ve just had to pay out for post 16 transport (and they say they encourage 16yos to stay on at school!!!) the crash in sterling because of brexit... i am substantially worse off under the tories.

Maybe you can tell me how this proposed 50 billion to the EU is going to be paid for?

If you're moaning now, see what happens if JC's lot get in and bankrupt us.

The 50 bn will need to be borrowed. But that's a lot less than a realistically costed estimate of what New Old Labour want to spend.

the tories are still continuing to borrow you know.... facing a revolt on defence spending cuts... now the latest is to claim back old railways and get councils to run them.... like they did in the 1870s.

look, i dont particularly think we need to start re nationalising everything but over time, buying back railways and the water companies would be a good thing, i d limit it to that though.

i like vfm and at mo, i m paying out but getting very little back, i d rather pay a bit more and get something for it, is it too much to expect to cycle on a pot hole free road?

No chance of pothole free roads in this country. This is one of the things that gets cut because people like you are happy for the UK to pay for roads in Spain or Poland to be pothole free.

And the £50bn we are paying, we would have been paying it had we remained. It would have come from some accounting trick by the EU and thus diverting more money away from spending internally. Yet, most of the loons on here support this approach :roll:

mamba80

Coopster the 1st wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

my overall tax burden is rocketing right now, rising prices, more vat paid, more council tax, less services, less spent on NHS (in real terms) same with education and roads, so called indirect taxation ie insurance tax, airport taxes.... the £400 i ve just had to pay out for post 16 transport (and they say they encourage 16yos to stay on at school!!!) the crash in sterling because of brexit... i am substantially worse off under the tories.

Maybe you can tell me how this proposed 50 billion to the EU is going to be paid for?

If you're moaning now, see what happens if JC's lot get in and bankrupt us.

The 50 bn will need to be borrowed. But that's a lot less than a realistically costed estimate of what New Old Labour want to spend.

the tories are still continuing to borrow you know.... facing a revolt on defence spending cuts... now the latest is to claim back old railways and get councils to run them.... like they did in the 1870s.

look, i dont particularly think we need to start re nationalising everything but over time, buying back railways and the water companies would be a good thing, i d limit it to that though.

i like vfm and at mo, i m paying out but getting very little back, i d rather pay a bit more and get something for it, is it too much to expect to cycle on a pot hole free road?

No chance of pothole free roads in this country. This is one of the things that gets cut because people like you are happy for the UK to pay for roads in Spain or Poland to be pothole free.

And the £50bn we are paying, we would have been paying it had we remained. It would have come from some accounting trick by the EU and thus diverting more money away from spending internally. Yet, most of the loons on here support this approach :roll:

We ve got poor public services not because we are in the EU and a net contributor but because of poor economic decision making by our gov, which is why other net contributing countries have decent roads and transport systems and we do not.
Stevos company is setting up a new business in Poland because of the eco dev in the east, my company has a tie in with a German/Hungarian outfit, my mate sells security equipment into eastern europe... all bringing money back to the UK.....

strange how these divorce figures were missing from the leave campaign..... :shock:

bit cold in St Petersburg?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

We ve got poor public services not because we are in the EU and a net contributor but because of poor economic decision making by our gov, which is why other net contributing countries have decent roads and transport systems and we do not.

Got any evidence to support those assertions?

mamba80 wrote:

Stevos company is setting up a new business in Poland because of the eco dev in the east, my company has a tie in with a German/Hungarian outfit, my mate sells security equipment into eastern europe... all bringing money back to the UK.....

strange how these divorce figures were missing from the leave campaign..... :shock:

bit cold in St Petersburg?

You should not use my company as an example in this context. The key drivers were low cost, good availability of suitable staff and a competitive tax regime. The 'eco development' in Poland was not a reason for setting up there - rather that is something that we are creating with our investment. (Also, just to be clear, Brexit was irrelevant to the decision).

ballysmate

Evidence Stevo?
Here's Liam Byrne's letter saying there was no money left.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

We ve got poor public services not because we are in the EU and a net contributor but because of poor economic decision making by our gov, which is why other net contributing countries have decent roads and transport systems and we do not.

Got any evidence to support those assertions?

mamba80 wrote:

Stevos company is setting up a new business in Poland because of the eco dev in the east, my company has a tie in with a German/Hungarian outfit, my mate sells security equipment into eastern europe... all bringing money back to the UK.....

strange how these divorce figures were missing from the leave campaign..... :shock:

bit cold in St Petersburg?

You should not use my company as an example in this context. The key drivers were low cost, good availability of suitable staff and a competitive tax regime. The 'eco development' in Poland was not a reason for setting up there - rather that is something that we are creating with our investment. (Also, just to be clear, Brexit was irrelevant to the decision).

so, if Poland was a peasant backwater, which it was in the 1990s before it joined the eu in 2004, you d still be there... right.

its eco transformation has been helped enormously by EU membership, some 14% of Polish exports go to the UK, about 13bn and 3% of their imports are from the UK... something we could do rather better at.

hopefully you re familiar with the advantages Poland has?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... port-guide

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Evidence Stevo?
Here's Liam Byrne's letter saying there was no money left.

Oh yeah, now just remind me who was in charge when it all got p1ssed away?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

hopefully you re familiar with the advantages Poland has?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... port-guide

Nice bit of general information but irrelevant to why we are there.

We purchased a small distributor there in the last decade but it is one of our smallest national operations in the region.

The current operation is a shared service centre which provides admin and support services to the rest of the region (in the process of being rolled out) - I.e. export of services. So the development of the Polish economy is nothing to do with why we made this investment. The reasons are low cost, good value suitable Labour supply and low tax - as mentioned above.

It's always a good idea to comment on the specifics rather than guess

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Evidence Stevo?
Here's Liam Byrne's letter saying there was no money left.

Oh yeah, now just remind me who was in charge when it all got p1ssed away?

Here are the actual stats.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

hopefully you re familiar with the advantages Poland has?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... port-guide

Nice bit of general information but irrelevant to why we are there.

We purchased a small distributor there in the last decade but it is one of our smallest national operations in the region.

The current operation is a shared service centre which provides admin and support services to the rest of the region (in the process of being rolled out) - I.e. export of services. So the development of the Polish economy is nothing to do with why we made this investment. The reasons are low cost, good value suitable Labour supply and low tax - as mentioned above.

It's always a good idea to comment on the specifics rather than guess

You re not making sense, you r there to facilitate export of services? why would a back water economy need these? in the wider area, other east european countries have done very well out of EU funding.

the Polish economy has grown exponentially since the collapse of the Soviet union, assisted ably by EU investment, just as you said further up the thread... having roads etc etc built for free enables lower taxes and good spending on public services.

Not just your outfit taking adv of a growing economy.....
https://financialobserver.eu/poland/pol ... r-in-2017/

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Evidence Stevo?
Here's Liam Byrne's letter saying there was no money left.

Oh yeah, now just remind me who was in charge when it all got p1ssed away?

Here are the actual stats.

I know.

Labour set the scene and loaded up our cost base so this was very difficult to avoid in the tough conditions that prevailed post GFC. As the graph points out, your lot were on board for 5 years and that didn't seem to help.

rick_chasey

Aye. Point is it's all about growth.

Growth growth growth.

Austerity plainly hasn't aided growth. Neither will/is Brexit.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

hopefully you re familiar with the advantages Poland has?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... port-guide

Nice bit of general information but irrelevant to why we are there.

We purchased a small distributor there in the last decade but it is one of our smallest national operations in the region.

The current operation is a shared service centre which provides admin and support services to the rest of the region (in the process of being rolled out) - I.e. export of services. So the development of the Polish economy is nothing to do with why we made this investment. The reasons are low cost, good value suitable Labour supply and low tax - as mentioned above.

It's always a good idea to comment on the specifics rather than guess

You re not making sense, you r there to facilitate export of services? why would a back water economy need these? in the wider area, other east european countries have done very well out of EU funding.

the Polish economy has grown exponentially since the collapse of the Soviet union, assisted ably by EU investment, just as you said further up the thread... having roads etc etc built for free enables lower taxes and good spending on public services.

Not just your outfit taking adv of a growing economy.....
https://financialobserver.eu/poland/pol ... r-in-2017/

I am making sense, its just that you don't get it.

Read my above post again. We have an operation there because it is a cost efficient location from which we provide certain types of support services to other group companies outside of Poland. We are not there for the purpose of facilitating exports of services for Poland; that is the effect of our activity, as is the positive impact on the Polish economy, jobs etc.

As for growth post soviet rule, well most places do well after the millstone of socialism is lifted

rolf_f

Coopster the 1st wrote:

No chance of pothole free roads in this country. This is one of the things that gets cut because people like you are happy for the UK to pay for roads in Spain or Poland to be pothole free.

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

We ve got poor public services not because we are in the EU and a net contributor but because of poor economic decision making by our gov, which is why other net contributing countries have decent roads and transport systems and we do not.

Got any evidence to support those assertions?

We have potholed roads not, as the dotard above asserts, because we are paying for Polish roads to be pothole free but because we make poor economic decisions and do an utterly sh1te job of road repairs. Go to Norway and they repair roads properly - they still look new after a quarter of a century. Here we get imbeciles you wouldn't employ to tarmac a drive to slap some surface dressing down to produce a terrible surface that is breaking up after the first frost (I assume I don't need specific evidence for this - I think we all know this is true from what we see on bike rides every day). Even when we do it supposedly correctly (with real tarmac etc etc) the quality of the job is laughable. I don't think there is a square foot of recently laid tarmac in the UK anywhere that Norewegian road builders wouldn't laugh at. Certainly not in Leeds.

And when the Norwegians (and I think most other European countries) have finished their roads they actually bother to maintain them. Cracks are filled with liquid tarmac so that come next winter, freeze thaw doesn't grow them. We don't do that. We just wait for a big hole to appear and after a cyclist or two has fallen into it they then get the dodgy tarmac'ers out to 'fix' it. It's not cheap and it's not effective.

Another example is a building going up next to my office. A block of flats and retail. This is on a street that ever since it was built has been in permanent decline - every so often badly made buildings get cleared, the space then left empty for a few decades only to be replaced by new badly made buildings. So the area always looks cheap. The block of flats? It's a house of cards of flat concrete slaps piled on top of each other with stick on fake bricks. It will look sh1t in 5 years time (tbh, it will look sh1t as soon as it is finished)and nobody who has a choice will choose to live in them - so this area will continue to fluctuate from new but seedy edge of city centre to rundown slum edge of city centre. All because we accept poor quality products to save a few quid. And this is called regeneration!

We do stuff on the cheap endlessly and we pay for it endlessly and in the mean time we have to live with the crap we didn't do properly. And if we did things properly we'd probably ultimately end up saving more than we put into Europe anyway. If the Poles and Spanish repair their roads properly then I'd rather contribute to their roads than the crappy way we repair ours.

mamba80

any evidence to back up this crazy assertion Rolf ?

pblakeney

I like the way roads are done in the USA. Companies tender. The successful company is then responsible for the upkeep for the next 25 years. You can be damned sure they do a good job. And their weather extremes are much worse than ours.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

I like the way roads are done in the USA. Companies tender. The successful company is then responsible for the upkeep for the next 25 years. You can be damned sure they do a good job. And their weather extremes are much worse than ours.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/def ... ctions.pdf

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I like the way roads are done in the USA. Companies tender. The successful company is then responsible for the upkeep for the next 25 years. You can be damned sure they do a good job. And their weather extremes are much worse than ours.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/def ... ctions.pdf

:?:

bobbygloss

Rolf F wrote:

Go to Norway and they repair roads properly - they still look new after a quarter of a century. Here we get imbeciles you wouldn't employ to tarmac a drive to slap some surface dressing down to produce a terrible surface that is breaking up after the first frost (I assume I don't need specific evidence for this - I think we all know this is true from what we see on bike rides every day). Even when we do it supposedly correctly (with real tarmac etc etc) the quality of the job is laughable. I don't think there is a square foot of recently laid tarmac in the UK anywhere that Norewegian road builders wouldn't laugh at. Certainly not in Leeds.

And when the Norwegians (and I think most other European countries) have finished their roads they actually bother to maintain them. Cracks are filled with liquid tarmac so that come next winter, freeze thaw doesn't grow them. We don't do that. We just wait for a big hole to appear and after a cyclist or two has fallen into it they then get the dodgy tarmac'ers out to 'fix' it. It's not cheap and it's not effective.

I have to disagree with the quality of Norwegian roads. There are many high-profile ultra expensive (and unnecessary) trunk road and cycle path projects which are good quality, but there are also many minor roads (the better cycle routes) and normal streets with a terrible surface, and terrible repair practices involving fresh asphalt being laid over the old surface, so it sinks into the same holes after a few weeks.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Evidence Stevo?
Here's Liam Byrne's letter saying there was no money left.

Oh yeah, now just remind me who was in charge when it all got p1ssed away?

Here are the actual stats.

I know.

Labour set the scene and loaded up our cost base so this was very difficult to avoid in the tough conditions that prevailed post GFC. As the graph points out, your lot were on board for 5 years and that didn't seem to help.

There was only one Chancellor. Maybe he just wasn't very good at it.

Oh look, the debt was rising under Major as well.

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

No chance of pothole free roads in this country. This is one of the things that gets cut because people like you are happy for the UK to pay for roads in Spain or Poland to be pothole free.

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

We ve got poor public services not because we are in the EU and a net contributor but because of poor economic decision making by our gov, which is why other net contributing countries have decent roads and transport systems and we do not.

Got any evidence to support those assertions?

We have potholed roads not, as the dotard above asserts, because we are paying for Polish roads to be pothole free but because we make poor economic decisions and do an utterly sh1te job of road repairs. Go to Norway and they repair roads properly - they still look new after a quarter of a century. Here we get imbeciles you wouldn't employ to tarmac a drive to slap some surface dressing down to produce a terrible surface that is breaking up after the first frost (I assume I don't need specific evidence for this - I think we all know this is true from what we see on bike rides every day). Even when we do it supposedly correctly (with real tarmac etc etc) the quality of the job is laughable. I don't think there is a square foot of recently laid tarmac in the UK anywhere that Norewegian road builders wouldn't laugh at. Certainly not in Leeds.

And when the Norwegians (and I think most other European countries) have finished their roads they actually bother to maintain them. Cracks are filled with liquid tarmac so that come next winter, freeze thaw doesn't grow them. We don't do that. We just wait for a big hole to appear and after a cyclist or two has fallen into it they then get the dodgy tarmac'ers out to 'fix' it. It's not cheap and it's not effective.

Another example is a building going up next to my office. A block of flats and retail. This is on a street that ever since it was built has been in permanent decline - every so often badly made buildings get cleared, the space then left empty for a few decades only to be replaced by new badly made buildings. So the area always looks cheap. The block of flats? It's a house of cards of flat concrete slaps piled on top of each other with stick on fake bricks. It will look sh1t in 5 years time (tbh, it will look sh1t as soon as it is finished)and nobody who has a choice will choose to live in them - so this area will continue to fluctuate from new but seedy edge of city centre to rundown slum edge of city centre. All because we accept poor quality products to save a few quid. And this is called regeneration!

We do stuff on the cheap endlessly and we pay for it endlessly and in the mean time we have to live with the crap we didn't do properly. And if we did things properly we'd probably ultimately end up saving more than we put into Europe anyway. If the Poles and Spanish repair their roads properly then I'd rather contribute to their roads than the crappy way we repair ours.

Anecdotal evidence is always the best. Well it it from Mamba's point of view

rolf_f

Bobbygloss wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Go to Norway and they repair roads properly - they still look new after a quarter of a century. Here we get imbeciles you wouldn't employ to tarmac a drive to slap some surface dressing down to produce a terrible surface that is breaking up after the first frost (I assume I don't need specific evidence for this - I think we all know this is true from what we see on bike rides every day). Even when we do it supposedly correctly (with real tarmac etc etc) the quality of the job is laughable. I don't think there is a square foot of recently laid tarmac in the UK anywhere that Norewegian road builders wouldn't laugh at. Certainly not in Leeds.

And when the Norwegians (and I think most other European countries) have finished their roads they actually bother to maintain them. Cracks are filled with liquid tarmac so that come next winter, freeze thaw doesn't grow them. We don't do that. We just wait for a big hole to appear and after a cyclist or two has fallen into it they then get the dodgy tarmac'ers out to 'fix' it. It's not cheap and it's not effective.

I have to disagree with the quality of Norwegian roads. There are many high-profile ultra expensive (and unnecessary) trunk road and cycle path projects which are good quality, but there are also many minor roads (the better cycle routes) and normal streets with a terrible surface, and terrible repair practices involving fresh asphalt being laid over the old surface, so it sinks into the same holes after a few weeks.

Well that screws my argument! But seriously - personally I saw very little sign of duff roads in Norway in around 4000 miles of cycling on them (or Germany, Sweden or Denmark for that matter; in the UK I often struggle to find any surface that isn't duff. Once in Denmark I found an extensively patched section of road and it was such a surprise I nearly stopped to photograph it! I agree that there are tons of ludicrous road project in Norway but the point is that the quality of the work is excellent. Where it goes wrong is that having built a road that would probably last 50 years they seem to often dig it up after 20 years and re-do it. Norway wastes money in completely different ways to us but it can afford to.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

No chance of pothole free roads in this country. This is one of the things that gets cut because people like you are happy for the UK to pay for roads in Spain or Poland to be pothole free.

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

We ve got poor public services not because we are in the EU and a net contributor but because of poor economic decision making by our gov, which is why other net contributing countries have decent roads and transport systems and we do not.

Got any evidence to support those assertions?

Anecdotal evidence is always the best. Well it it from Mamba's point of view

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-is-third- ... y-10774977

behind Russia and Turkey! something at last we lead the EU in ....

rolf_f

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

No chance of pothole free roads in this country. This is one of the things that gets cut because people like you are happy for the UK to pay for roads in Spain or Poland to be pothole free.

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

We ve got poor public services not because we are in the EU and a net contributor but because of poor economic decision making by our gov, which is why other net contributing countries have decent roads and transport systems and we do not.

Got any evidence to support those assertions?

Anecdotal evidence is always the best. Well it it from Mamba's point of view

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-is-third- ... y-10774977

behind Russia and Turkey! something at last we lead the EU in ....

But Aberdeen eclipsed London for congestion at peak periods, with drivers stuck in gridlock 24% of the time, moving at an average speed of 5.5mph.

You've got to wonder how utterly Brexit people can be that they would on a daily basis put themselves through that when perfectly sensible and much quicker options (eg cycling) exist. That sort of chaos should self regulate when it reaches the level of pain that it isn't worth doing.

pblakeney

Rolf F wrote:

You've got to wonder how utterly Brexit people can be that they would on a daily basis put themselves through that when perfectly sensible and much quicker options (eg cycling) exist. That sort of chaos should self regulate when it reaches the level of pain that it isn't worth doing.

The source of most city drivers ire - jealousy. Yet can't be arsed doing anything about it.
Nuts.

Stevo_666

Bobbygloss wrote:

I have to disagree with the quality of Norwegian roads. There are many high-profile ultra expensive (and unnecessary) trunk road and cycle path projects which are good quality, but there are also many minor roads (the better cycle routes) and normal streets with a terrible surface, and terrible repair practices involving fresh asphalt being laid over the old surface, so it sinks into the same holes after a few weeks.

I guess the Norwegian road look different when you aren't looking at them with rose tinted specs as some people on here are doing It also helps if you have vast natural reserves to export which are very large in relation to the size of your economy/population.

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

Bobbygloss wrote:

I have to disagree with the quality of Norwegian roads. There are many high-profile ultra expensive (and unnecessary) trunk road and cycle path projects which are good quality, but there are also many minor roads (the better cycle routes) and normal streets with a terrible surface, and terrible repair practices involving fresh asphalt being laid over the old surface, so it sinks into the same holes after a few weeks.

I guess the Norwegian road look different when you aren't looking at them with rose tinted specs as some people on here are doing It also helps if you have vast natural reserves to export which are very large in relation to the size of your economy/population.

OK then. You purport to be big on facts. What's your experience of Norwegian roads as you sound so knowledgeable about them? Mine, as I partly explained, is a good 4000 of them ridden from the Southern border with Sweden to Kirkenes in the far North. Whatever colour my specs were they most definitely weren't rose tinted. Furthermore, whilst the vast natural reserves do help, the point that I thought I was making clearly enough for the likes of Coopster let alone yourself is that they are spending wisely - investing in doing things properly. The whole point of which is that it pays off in the long run. The natural reserves are frittered away on the OTT big projects that Bobbygloss mentioned but this isn't about that - just doing the routine work properly in the first place, and then doing preventative maintenance, makes more economic and environmental sense than repeatedly doing the same job badly.

You don't help your arguments by agreeing with people on topics that you know nothing of just because that point of view serves your argument.

Would you like a winking smiley with that?

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Bobbygloss wrote:

I have to disagree with the quality of Norwegian roads. There are many high-profile ultra expensive (and unnecessary) trunk road and cycle path projects which are good quality, but there are also many minor roads (the better cycle routes) and normal streets with a terrible surface, and terrible repair practices involving fresh asphalt being laid over the old surface, so it sinks into the same holes after a few weeks.

I guess the Norwegian road look different when you aren't looking at them with rose tinted specs as some people on here are doing It also helps if you have vast natural reserves to export which are very large in relation to the size of your economy/population.

OK then. You purport to be big on facts. What's your experience of Norwegian roads as you sound so knowledgeable about them? Mine, as I partly explained, is a good 4000 of them ridden from the Southern border with Sweden to Kirkenes in the far North. Whatever colour my specs were they most definitely weren't rose tinted. Furthermore, whilst the vast natural reserves do help, the point that I thought I was making clearly enough for the likes of Coopster let alone yourself is that they are spending wisely - investing in doing things properly. The whole point of which is that it pays off in the long run. The natural reserves are frittered away on the OTT big projects that Bobbygloss mentioned but this isn't about that - just doing the routine work properly in the first place, and then doing preventative maintenance, makes more economic and environmental sense than repeatedly doing the same job badly.

You don't help your arguments by agreeing with people on topics that you know nothing of just because that point of view serves your argument.

Would you like a winking smiley with that?

Average, from what I've seen on my business trips there.