Lord Blunkett unveils £14bn plan to fix Yorkshire's railways
Anyone who travels in Yorkshire will tell you that it's railway system is very old and very unreliable.
Now, the former Labour home secretary David Blunkett has unveiled a plan to overhaul its 'creaking Victorian-era' railways.
His plan is backed by the mayors of West, South and North Yorkshire.
The trouble is, it would cost fourteen-billion-pounds, and the Metro mayors for the other side of the Pennines also want seventeen-billion for a faster line between Liverpool and Manchester.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
21 minutes ago
- The National
Edinburgh councillors vote in favour of arms firms using public parks for testing
Green councillor Ben Parker tabled the motion, which aimed at banning the practice following a public backlash last year over the arms firm Leonardo testing its equipment in the Braid Hills area of the capital. Leonardo, which employs around 1800 people at its site near Crewe Toll, was given a licence to test communications equipment in Braid Hills in December last year. On Thursday, Edinburgh councillors voted 5-6 against introducing the ban, with SNP and Greens voting in favour and Labour, Liberal Democrats, and Tories voting against it. READ MORE: 'Israel herding Palestinians into concentration camps,' says Gaza aid chief Cllr Parker said he was 'obviously disappointed' at the outcome but said his party will continue to stand up to companies who 'profit from war'. He said: 'Today, Councillors had a chance to stand up for peace and instead chose inaction. 'Despite community objections and a clear moral imperative, the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties have voted to continue to allow arms manufacturers to test their equipment in our beautiful, publicly owned, green spaces. 'I'm obviously disappointed in the decision made today, but Green Councillors will continue to push for Edinburgh to be a city which stands up for justice and doesn't bend to the whims of companies who profit from war.' In a written deputation submitted in advance of the committee meeting, the chair of the Friends of the Braid Hills Group, Elaine Le Geyt-Anderson, said it is 'unbearable' to watch the genocide unfold in Gaza by equipment manufactured in Edinburgh and tested on the Braid Hills. She said: 'As chair of Friends of the Braid Hills I have stated clearly to the council, as stakeholders, that we strongly oppose the use of Edinburgh green spaces, gifted to the people of Edinburgh, to be used in this way by a company which manufactures components which kill children and bomb hospitals. 'It is unbearable to watch news on our televisions, seeing children maimed and orphaned by equipment manufactured in Edinburgh and now tested on the Braid Hills.' She added: 'The new park management rules must reflect a clear decision never to give permission to any arms manufacturer for the testing of components or equipment on the Braid Hills or any other of Edinburgh's beautiful green spaces, which were gifted to the city for our enjoyment and wellbeing.' The City of Edinburgh Council has been approached for comment.
Leader Live
35 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Peers debate change to 105-year-old law so children can work on steam trains
Labour's Lord Faulkner of Worcester proposed an amendment to the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, which barred children from work in any 'any industrial undertaking', including in mines, construction or transport. If agreed, his change would have exempted voluntary work on heritage railways and tramways from the ban. Government whip Lord Katz cautioned there 'may be unintended consequences' by amending the 'old legislation', but Lord Faulkner indicated he could push for a vote on his proposal before the Employment Rights Bill becomes law. Supporting the proposals, independent crossbench peer the Earl of Clancarty said: 'Steam railways are an important part of this country's heritage, and as every year passes that importance surely grows. 'We are getting closer to a time when there will be no-one with a personal memory of such trains in their working life, so as well as being an enjoyable activity for interested, enthusiastic children and young people, this is also an educational opportunity for the next generation.' Lord Faulkner said the ban was from a 'very different era' and told the Lords it 'languished unknown on the statute book for many years'. He said: 'Heritage railways managers, not surprisingly, do not wish to break the law, even if it is moribund and other safeguards exist.' Training on heritage railways 'has led to many seeking careers on the national rail network and in some cases have provided training and apprenticeships appropriate to their future career choices', Lord Faulkner added. He warned that even where regulators have said they would not prosecute a child who volunteers on a heritage railway, a legal challenge 'could be brought by a local authority or by a relative of a young people, regardless of the assurances given'. Historic England chairman and Conservative peer Lord Mendoza said: 'One of the most difficult things in the heritage sector is to encourage young people to come into it, to learn the skills, to learn the trades that we need in order to keep our heritage environment going for as long as we can.' In his response, Lord Katz said 'regulators should and do take a proportionate approach to enforcement action'. He offered a meeting with peers who wanted to change the law, adding: 'The 1920 Act is old legislation and amendment of it should only be considered after a thorough review upon other areas of law, as there may be unintended consequences.' Withdrawing his amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, Lord Faulkner said he would 'take up the minister's kind offer' but added that without solution, he believed 'the House as a whole would like the opportunity to express its view on the report' as the draft new law progresses.
The Guardian
39 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the Conservatives and international law: a party trapped inside its own destructive obsessions
Kemi Badenoch's announcement of a Conservative party inquiry into a British withdrawal from the European convention on human rights (ECHR) should fool no one. The working party under the shadow attorney general, David Wolfson, announced on Thursday, will not look dispassionately at whether the UK should withdraw. It will merely try to say why and how. The policy of withdrawal itself is almost, to coin a phrase, oven-ready. This back-to-front policymaking process exemplifies the party's rudderless drift under Mrs Badenoch. Tory policy is not now in the hands of the leader or the shadow cabinet. It is in the hands of Reform UK and the opinion polls. Mrs Badenoch is a follower of events. Hers is the approach of someone still trapped in a party bubble which is consumed by the belief that withdrawal is the key to regaining the Conservatives' squandered popularity. This is nonsensical politics for the Tories. But it is also dangerous for Britain. The UK's long commitment to international law is a cornerstone of this country's soft power standing in the world. Labour's reassertion of this approach, with its clear signal to the world that Britain can again be trusted as a partner, has generated national benefits since the party returned to office last year. This does not mean that every aspect of international law (of which the ECHR is part) is unchallengeable or holy writ. The primary responsibility for the rule of law and for human rights is at the national level. The states that signed international covenants and treaties after 1945 'did not give an open-ended licence for international rules to be ever more expansively interpreted or for institutions to adopt a position of blindness or indifference to public sentiment in their member states'. Those words come from the current attorney general, Richard Hermer. They were part of his lucid and balanced lecture on security to the Royal United Services Institute last week. To judge by the fury it unleashed among the Daily Telegraph and Spectator writing classes, you might think that Lord Hermer had insisted that only lawyers like him could solve the world's conflicts and injustices, and that anyone who disagreed with him was a Nazi. Lord Hermer said no such things. Those who read his lecture will instead find an explicit attempt to depolarise the debate. He criticises as 'romantic idealists' those who treat international law as the reign of universal moral principle and who abhor all concession to nation-state interests. But he also denounced the 'pseudo-realists' who argue, amid the current unravelling of the post-1945 order, that nation-state interests can now take precedence over law. This, he said, was Russia's argument in Ukraine (he was too craven to mention that it is Donald Trump's philosophy of government too). British politicians drawn to this exceptionalist thinking in the name of realism risked committing 'deeply unserious acts in a deadly serious age'. To leave the ECHR would be just such an act. But its consequences would be desperately serious. It would give succour to authoritarian rulers on all continents. It would drain Britain's reputation for reliability again, as Brexit did. And it would achieve none of the goals in national security, criminal justice and migration control that its supporters imagine. Lord Hermer is right that serious problems can ultimately only be resolved through negotiations, driven by politics, which are then knitted together in laws that must be upheld. You cannot have one without the other.
