"This is great news for ALL of Birmingham"- positive reaction to mega millions tram line investment
There has been a mostly positive reaction after it was announced the region would be getting millions to fund a new tram line linking the new Birmingham City Football Ground and Sports Quarter in Bordesley Green.
Brummies, not only Blues fans, welcomed news of the mega investment in terms of jobs, prosperity and regeneration promising "make it a great experience and we'll fill it".
A new £2.4 billion treasure chest for the region will fund vital transport projects over five years. Part of it - an estimated £3-400 million - will pay for a new Metro tram line to the former Wheels site.
READ MORE: UK households with garden fences warned 'contact council' or risk £20,000 fine
READ MORE: Tamworth schools placed in lockdown after man with machete alert
Read More: Massive Blues announcement as Government gives mega-millions for Sports Quarter tram line
The announcement today, Wednesday June 4, by Chancellor Rachel Reeves marks the successful conclusion of months of intense lobbying by Mayor Parker and Knighthead frontman Tom Wagner.
The American had warned it would be 'criminal' if public money was not used to fund the transport infrastructure he said was vital to unlock the £3 billion investment.
After the news broke, BirminghamLive readers had their say on the plans.
Hugh White said: "Best thing that could happen to Birmingham. Benefit everyone. Jobs galore."
Dave said: "Wow, not often we get some genuine good news for our city here but this is a exactly what we need.
"The east of the city has been completely forgotten and the transport system in general in Birmingham is a national problem.
"The only drawback is we are probably going to have to suffer another 10 years of tramworks."
2_alltheyoungdudes wrote: "This is great news for ALL of Birmingham.
"It's not going to be just a football ground and will create a lot of jobs/revenue which has to be beneficial for all of the City.
"Aston village are you listening. .The future is BLUE. KRO."
June 1949 wrote: "Not a blues supporter but can't see why anyone would think this is anything but positive for our city or perhaps they'd prefer the money going to London."
Faillte said: "Yet no news on a timeline for its completion.... WHY?
"Good news on the funding for it, but it's still 10 years away from completion."
Rg48 said: "Exactly we need new generations supporting midlands clubs and not looking north or south.
"Build it, make it a great experience and we'll fill it."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stephen Miller Melts Down as Musk Exits With His Wife and an Attack on Trump
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller spammed social media Tuesday night in a raging display of his unwavering support for President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' as it faced increasing backlash from MAGA figures, including Elon Musk. The Trump loyalist went in hard to sell the 1,038-page document that passed the House by a single vote on May 22. Miller's comments came hours after former DOGE chief Musk attacked the mega-spending bill as the legislation moves to the Senate, labeling it a 'disgusting abomination.' The world's richest man also threatened to 'fire all politicians who betrayed the American people' at next year's midterm elections. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk wrote on X. Miller responded by calling Trump's bill 'the most essential piece of legislation... in generations' and 'the most MAGA bill ever passed by the House.' Miller pointedly described those on Trump's side of the argument as the president's 'closest allies.' It is unclear how much personal animus there is between Miller and Musk after the tech billionaire walked out on the administration, taking Miller's wife Katie with him. Katie Miller was hired by DOGE under the same 'special government employee' status as Musk, meaning that she was also time-limited to 130 days in office, but that has done little to quell unsubstantiated internet speculation about Musk and the Millers. She will now reportedly work for Musk full-time. Miller began his own barrage of posts on X, first by claiming Trump's bill would fund increased deportation. '[The bill] will increase by orders of magnitude the scope, scale, and speed of removing illegal and criminal aliens from the United States,' Miller wrote. 'For that reason alone, it's the most essential piece of legislation currently under consideration in the entire Western World, in generations.' 'Now or never,' the 39-year-old wrote in another post. Trump's bill is estimated to increase the budget deficit by approximately $600 billion in the next fiscal year. Miller tried to explain his take on the bill by breaking it down into three sections: 'The most significant border security and deportation effort' in history, a full 'extension and expansion' of Trump's tax cuts and finally cutting almost $2 trillion through 'the largest welcome reform in history.' 'Item 1 alone (border security + deportation),' Miller wrote, 'makes this the most important legislation for the conservative project in the history of the nation.' Critics of Trump's bill fear it would lead to millions of Americans losing health coverage by slashing Medicaid and introducing budget cuts to food assistance programs, with spending on border security and military programs increased. Some Republicans have also expressed fears about the rising cost of the bill, despite a deadline of July 4 to get the measure passed and signed into law. Miller's flurry of posts included him bragging that the bill 'was designed by President Trump and his allies in Congress to deliver on his core campaign pledges to voters and that is exactly what it does. This is the most MAGA bill ever passed by the House, and it's not even close.' 'The bill was designed by President Trump, his loyal aides, and his closest allies in Congress to deliver fully and enthusiastically on the explicit promises he made the American People,' he wrote in another post. Miller also called out GOP Kentucky senator Rand Paul, who told Fox Business his biggest objection to Trump's bill was the addition of '$5 trillion to the debt ceiling' over the next decade. 'Why doesn't Rand ever fight this hard to deport illegals?' Miller asked in a post. Miller clarified Trump's bill would not fund the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or the Environmental Protection Agency. Experts have, however, warned the bill could ruin student loan borrowers and universities and will have an environmental impact through increased mining and logging of public lands to raise revenue. 'We could have never dreamed of a bill like this in 2017,' Miller posted on X. Miller's loyalty comes as other Republican senators have joined Musk in questioning the contents of Trump's bill. At least four are demanding changes, according to Reuters. They include Sen. Mike Lee and Sen. Ron Johnson. While Republicans have a 53-47 seat majority in the Senate, they cannot afford to lose support. Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene revealed she had not read a part of the bulky bill that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence systems for a decade. 'Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of (the bill) that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years,' Greene posted on X. 'I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.' California Republican Jack Kimble was also critical of the bill on Tuesday. He posted on X: 'Full transparency, I did not know that the big beautiful bill was a real budget and would be used to determine spending levels. It seems to me that this is something that should have been made known to those in the House of Representative[s].' When a follower told him 'you're supposed to read the bills before you vote on them' Kimble replied 'Yeah, my bad.' Ron Johnson also agreed with Musk's 'disgusting abomination' comments on the bill. Speaking to NewsNation's The Hill on Tuesday, Johnson said, 'He's telling the truth... that's all I'm doing, too.' 'The trajectory of deficits is up, and no matter what the 'big, beautiful bill' does, it does not address that long-term prospect, it does not bend the deficit curve down. It supports it going up.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Trump was already aware of 'where Elon Musk stood on this bill' and that he would not be changing it. 'This is one, big, beautiful bill,' Leavitt said on Tuesday. 'And he's sticking to it.'
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Reeves refuses to rule out autumn tax raid
Rachel Reeves has refused to rule out further tax rises in the Autumn as Cabinet colleagues pile pressure on the Chancellor to unleash more money for public spending. Ms Reeves repeatedly declined to rule out raising taxes on families and businesses at an event on Thursday night as she prepares to set out Whitehall spending plans for the next three years. 'I'm not going to say that I'm not going to take any tax measures in the next four years,' she told an audience of business leaders at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) annual dinner. Asked four times by CBI president Rupert Soames to reassure Britons they would not be subject to higher taxes, Ms Reeves could only commit to avoiding a repeat of the record £40bn tax raid she launched last Autumn. 'I'm not going to be able to write all four years of budgets sitting here this evening,' she said. Economists have warned that a series of spending commitments made by Sir Keir Starmer, including restoring winter fuel payments to most pensioners and speculation that the two-child cap on benefits will be lifted, will force the issue and lead to higher taxes in the Autumn. JP Morgan has estimated that taxes may need to rise by up to £24bn to cover recent policy announcements and to compensate for the hit to growth from higher tariffs. Pressure is also building on Ms Reeves from Labour's Left after the leak of a memo sent to the Treasury by Angela Rayner's department ahead of the Spring Statement. It detailed potential tax rises that could have avoided spending cuts to balance the budget. Ms Reeves on Thursday insisted the economy was 'turning the corner' even as she admitted that growth was too low, leaving families 'struggling with living standards not improving'. Bosses warned that Labour's workers' rights overhaul was set to worsen the problem. A survey by the Institute of Directors published on Friday found over seven in 10 business leaders believed the upcoming Employment Rights Bill would have a negative impact on UK economic growth. The Chancellor insisted growth around the world had been disappointing. 'None of our countries are growing at the rate that we used to or the rate that we want to. All of us are struggling with living standards not improving and our citizens are becoming restless,' she said. Cabinet colleagues including deputy prime minister Ms Rayner are piling pressure on the Chancellor to release more money for government departments ahead of the Spending Review on Wednesday. Ms Reeves also hinted that the Government was preparing a package of measures to help businesses deal with higher energy costs. She signalled her three year spending review would also unleash a wave of funding for infrastructure projects, from renewables to nuclear energy. She said: 'I know that one of the questions that we need to answer is how we're going to make energy more affordable, particularly for some of our most intensive energy-using businesses where the price differential with other countries around the world is just too acute for many to be competitive. 'And so that's a question we will answer in the industrial strategy in a few weeks.' The cost of power for factories in Britain is now about 50pc more expensive than in Germany and France, and four times as expensive as in the US. The commons business select committee on Friday warned that high energy prices were holding back growth and urged ministers to address the issue as part of the upcoming industrial strategy. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Committing to the Chicago Principles of free speech is the only way forward for higher education
I've been a faculty member at the University of Chicago for 27 years; for 12 of them, I was married to the university's late president, Robert J. Zimmer. Bob was well known for his endorsement of the 'Chicago Principles' addressing academic free speech, which were formulated by a faculty committee he appointed in 2014. Now, in 2025, at a time when opposing ideological forces threaten to rip higher education apart altogether, it's clearer than ever we need to observe these principles if we are to maintain our universities as places for inquiry and learning rather than the nurturing of ideologies. First of all, let's be clear. Academic free speech and public free speech are not the same, and the Chicago Principles refer to the former, repeating a view of speech on campus with roots deep in the university's history. 'There is not an institution of learning in the country in which freedom of teaching is more absolutely untrammeled than in the University of Chicago,' remarked university President William Rainey Harper in 1902. Thirty years later, at a time of tension over a communist speaker on campus, President Robert M. Hutchins wrote that students 'should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself.' Today, when being either for or against the position of our national government comes with undue risk and when free speech seems to many to be an insoluble problem, these principles — what they allow and what they do not — offer us simple guidelines as the American university faces two crises, both political in nature. The first crisis is one of free speech — and free thought — under attack. Faculty across the country face constraints on the ability to express a liberal opinion on any controversial matter, especially if related to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) or other 'woke' topics. One of my friends from another university worries that despite her U.S. passport (she's originally Japanese) the ICE men will kidnap her off the street because her work is in gender, disability and health. She doesn't expect her administration to step in if she's detained — too many college administrations are primarily worried about losing additional government funding. My friend is not being paranoid, and that's pretty terrifying in a country known for tolerance and freedom. Professors and students have been shut down or removed (or have fled the U.S.) for their views. Just think of Rümeysa Öztürk, whose great crime appears to have been co-authoring a pro-Palestinian op-ed for her school newspaper while on a valid F-1 visa. Never mind the Chicago Principles, ICE's overreach in her case violates the First Amendment: The government shall not interfere with freedom of expression. Öztürk was not disruptive or violent. She simply published a point of view. Are we willing to let go of this democratic cornerstone that enables public discourse and government accountability? Don't we want to push back even a little? The second crisis is arguably one of pushing free speech too far. Some students and faculty on campuses around the country seem to be confusing vandalism and disruption with the function of learning. Is using a bullhorn an example of academic free speech? If you thereby chill the main function of a university, offering an education, by disrupting classes and students, the Chicago Principles would say it's not. Nor is taking over a campus quad, vandalizing university property, throwing paint or harassing people you disagree with. Free speech on campus is enabled by certain limits of time, place and manner that keep it manageable for all. The university 'may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment … or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the university.' Without such limits a university will have difficulty following its calling. If the future of the university itself is now at stake, as so many seem to agree, it would be a good time to reinstate our commitment to these principles. University presidents need not have to decide whether or not to call in the police if tent cities spring up on campus and administrative buildings are taken over. It should never get to that stage in the first place. ____ Shadi Bartsch is a professor in humanities at the University of Chicago and former director of the Institute on the Formation of Knowledge. _____
