In fact, it was Labour's fault that Javid was at Deutsche Bank. He wanted to be a train driver, but several Labour ministers recommended him to the bank. (I made this up).
Prove it (that you made it up)!
Sounds quite plausible to me. Those loony Lefties will do anything to keep a Good Man down...
Labour inherited the boom and bust culture from the Thatcher/Major government. They steadied the economy. Brought prosperity. They left the country in better shape than they found it, even with the crash.
Blair inherited a strong economy. That's why he was reluctant to change things for some time.
So Javid was possibly involved in dodgy deals. Why am I not surprised.
Deutsche Bank have an incredible list of dodgy deals and fines. Money laundering, for Russians naturally; the Libor scam; US sanctions busting; selling bad financial products, $7 billion fine; using a detective agency to spy on critics. I'm not saying Javid was involved. In fact, weren't the directors all Labour Party members?
So Javid was possibly involved in dodgy deals. Why am I not surprised.
Deutsche Bank have an incredible list of dodgy deals and fines. Money laundering, for Russians naturally; the Libor scam; US sanctions busting; selling bad financial products, $7 billion fine; using a detective agency to spy on critics. I'm not saying Javid was involved. In fact, weren't the directors all Labour Party members?
I'd be highly surprised if the board of Deutsche Bank were all members of the UK Labour party.
Don't flatter yourself. "Provoking" and "thought provoking" are two very different things. You come across more as a troll than as someone who just wants to introduce new ideas.
If the electorate vote out Labour that's proof Labour left a weak economy, and if the electorate vote out the Tories that's proof the Tories left a strong economy?
I'm glad you've set us straight on that one.
Further to the point about Javid's claim of non-alignment with the EU, many regulations, e.g., with cars, operate at a U.N. level, thus the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which is working towards a World Forum for Harmonization. Don't tell me that car makers are going to opt out, because of right wing ideology, they won't sell any cars..
Don't flatter yourself. "Provoking" and "thought provoking" are two very different things. You come across more as a troll than as someone who just wants to introduce new ideas.
I'm not a troll I'm just someone who is new to this forum.
(Edited to fix coding, which is resisting being fixed - Rossweisse)
And, because prices will be going up, we'll have to import cheaper, lower- (by EU standards) grade food from the US, thereby under-cutting our own our farmers, shutting them out of the EU market (though they will still be able to export lamb to the Japanese, who don't eat it) and effectually throwing them under a bus, sacrificed to the great Brexit Juggernaut.
Further to the point about Javid's claim of non-alignment with the EU, many regulations, e.g., with cars, operate at a U.N. level, thus the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which is working towards a World Forum for Harmonization. Don't tell me that car makers are going to opt out, because of right wing ideology, they won't sell any cars..
That doesn't make much sense to me. Car manufacturers already make different versions of the same car to specifications in different markets. You can't tell me that a car driven in Sudan is made to the same standard as one destined for the EU.
The point is that the EU is a big market for UK-made cars. And the EU have made it perfectly clear that the only way that UK manufactures can continue having complete and free access to the EU is if the UK remains aligned.
Of course the UK manufacturers could make products to EU (US, Sudanese or anyone else's standards).
They could but most likely won't produce to EU standards, as if there is no national alignment agreement with the EU then there will be tariffs and checks like any other third country.
But that's always been part of the Brexit plan. British manufacturing and agriculture is being wound down. Exports of these will dwindle to almost nothing.
What the Tories want by disentangling from EU regulations is to be able to import anything they want from the world market, particularly things that are not allowed in the EU.
Because the prize is cheaper products from around the world and the cost is the total elimination of physical product exports.
Yes, and farewell to the Tory vote in the newly conquered North, where the electorate was expecting a great revival of industrial employment.
I don't think they give a single shit.
And that's part if the tragedy of our age; the chancers, liars, spivs and free-marketer weirdos have been able to persuade the largely forgotten urban poor to vote against their own interests.
Cynically as well, because they never had any intention of lifting a finger to help. This was always only ever about "winning" a battle about trade liberalisation and to hell with any negative externalities.
Yes, and farewell to the Tory vote in the newly conquered North, where the electorate was expecting a great revival of industrial employment.
I don't think they give a single shit.
And that's part if the tragedy of our age; the chancers, liars, spivs and free-marketer weirdos have been able to persuade the largely forgotten urban poor to vote against their own interests.
Cynically as well, because they never had any intention of lifting a finger to help. This was always only ever about "winning" a battle about trade liberalisation and to hell with any negative externalities.
I disagree. They will be wanting to win the next election as well.
Yes, and farewell to the Tory vote in the newly conquered North, where the electorate was expecting a great revival of industrial employment.
I don't think they give a single shit.
And that's part if the tragedy of our age; the chancers, liars, spivs and free-marketer weirdos have been able to persuade the largely forgotten urban poor to vote against their own interests.
Cynically as well, because they never had any intention of lifting a finger to help. This was always only ever about "winning" a battle about trade liberalisation and to hell with any negative externalities.
I disagree. They will be wanting to win the next election as well.
But the last few years has shown that winning elections has very little to do with what you actually do and far more to do with what the media claim you did.
The Tories will want to win the next election. I'm not so sure Boris is that concerned. He was lent the votes he needed to win in December and "get Brexit done". If part of the cost of Brexit is for the Tories to lose the next election then I'm not that sure he cares (though if he could win that election he's not going to complain).
Car manufacturers already make different versions of the same car to specifications in different markets. You can't tell me that a car driven in Sudan is made to the same standard as one destined for the EU.
I can't see why it wouldn't be made to the same standard. Firstly and I think more importantly, having two sets of production for something like cars is expensive. Whatever you save by not making cars to a higher standard than you need to in the lower market has to more than compensate for what you lose from not having economies of scale and standardised processes. This is especially so if the lower standards market has also lower consumer spending power. Secondly, you don't want word of your cheap versions in the cheaper market colouring perceptions of your product in the more expensive market. You want your brand to mean about the same wherever in the world someone goes.
They may not be decisive considerations. But I'd want to see evidence before I assumed that they're not.
Yes, and farewell to the Tory vote in the newly conquered North, where the electorate was expecting a great revival of industrial employment.
I don't think they give a single shit.
And that's part if the tragedy of our age; the chancers, liars, spivs and free-marketer weirdos have been able to persuade the largely forgotten urban poor to vote against their own interests.
Cynically as well, because they never had any intention of lifting a finger to help. This was always only ever about "winning" a battle about trade liberalisation and to hell with any negative externalities.
I disagree. They will be wanting to win the next election as well.
But the last few years has shown that winning elections has very little to do with what you actually do and far more to do with what the media claim you did.
Exactly. The Tories will say all kinds of blatant stupidity, and morons like @telford will believe it and regurgitate it.
The regulations that the UK want to diverge from don't apply to the products themselves, but to the workers who make them. And they don't want to increase those regulations. They want to ditch them. That's what it's been about. That's what it's always been about.
Yes, and farewell to the Tory vote in the newly conquered North, where the electorate was expecting a great revival of industrial employment.
I don't think they give a single shit.
And that's part if the tragedy of our age; the chancers, liars, spivs and free-marketer weirdos have been able to persuade the largely forgotten urban poor to vote against their own interests.
Cynically as well, because they never had any intention of lifting a finger to help. This was always only ever about "winning" a battle about trade liberalisation and to hell with any negative externalities.
I disagree. They will be wanting to win the next election as well.
But the last few years has shown that winning elections has very little to do with what you actually do and far more to do with what the media claim you did.
Exactly. The Tories will say all kinds of blatant stupidity, and morons like @telford will believe it and regurgitate it.
He never claimed to have believed it In any case blatant stupidity is never a good move.
Yes, and farewell to the Tory vote in the newly conquered North, where the electorate was expecting a great revival of industrial employment.
I don't think they give a single shit.
And that's part if the tragedy of our age; the chancers, liars, spivs and free-marketer weirdos have been able to persuade the largely forgotten urban poor to vote against their own interests.
Cynically as well, because they never had any intention of lifting a finger to help. This was always only ever about "winning" a battle about trade liberalisation and to hell with any negative externalities.
I disagree. They will be wanting to win the next election as well.
But the last few years has shown that winning elections has very little to do with what you actually do and far more to do with what the media claim you did.
Exactly. The Tories will say all kinds of blatant stupidity, and morons like @telford will believe it and regurgitate it.
He never claimed to have believed it In any case blatant stupidity is never a good move.
Apologies: the belief part was courtesy, as a possibility of not being a troll. Thanks for clearing that up.
The regurgitating blatant stupidity part is a factual matter of record on this thread.
The Tories will want to win the next election. I'm not so sure Boris is that concerned. He was lent the votes he needed to win in December and "get Brexit done". If part of the cost of Brexit is for the Tories to lose the next election then I'm not that sure he cares (though if he could win that election he's not going to complain).
I dunno, I think Mr Johnson's priorities are exactly the opposite of what you suggest. I think his priorities are:
1. Be PM
2. Be popular
3. Wait, what, people can have other political goals beyond those two?
Brexit is purely a means of achieving (1) and (2).
Your interpretation supposes that he wants Brexit as a matter of principle. The idea that Mr Johnson wants anything as a matter of principle flies in the face of all empirical evidence.
Yes, and farewell to the Tory vote in the newly conquered North, where the electorate was expecting a great revival of industrial employment.
I don't think they give a single shit.
And that's part if the tragedy of our age; the chancers, liars, spivs and free-marketer weirdos have been able to persuade the largely forgotten urban poor to vote against their own interests.
Cynically as well, because they never had any intention of lifting a finger to help. This was always only ever about "winning" a battle about trade liberalisation and to hell with any negative externalities.
I disagree. They will be wanting to win the next election as well.
But the last few years has shown that winning elections has very little to do with what you actually do and far more to do with what the media claim you did.
Exactly. The Tories will say all kinds of blatant stupidity, and morons like @telford will believe it and regurgitate it.
He never claimed to have believed it In any case blatant stupidity is never a good move.
Apologies: the belief part was courtesy, as a possibility of not being a troll. Thanks for clearing that up.
The regurgitating blatant stupidity part is a factual matter of record on this thread.
As a modest and humble person I refuse to take the credit
Yes, and farewell to the Tory vote in the newly conquered North, where the electorate was expecting a great revival of industrial employment.
I don't think they give a single shit.
And that's part if the tragedy of our age; the chancers, liars, spivs and free-marketer weirdos have been able to persuade the largely forgotten urban poor to vote against their own interests.
Cynically as well, because they never had any intention of lifting a finger to help. This was always only ever about "winning" a battle about trade liberalisation and to hell with any negative externalities.
I disagree. They will be wanting to win the next election as well.
They're fucking it up already. There's talk now of HS2 finishing at Birmingham - sorry, using existing capacity North of Birmingham.
I'll believe that the Tories are really interested in the North when they invest in the infrastructure to get fast trains between Yorkshire and Manchester. Leeds to Manchester is about 40 miles and trains take at least 70 minutes. Bedford is 50 miles from London and the fastest trains take around 40 minutes. But it's the North that doesn't need new infrastructure, apparently.
That's the London thing. London-Leeds is only 135 minutes (194 miles)
The shires are even more toried, at least there is a bit of infrastructure up north
Bedford to Northampton is 30 miles and trains take 90 minutes (actually better than I thought I forgot about BStJ)
Bedford Cam is the same and takes 120 minutes
Bedford Leeds is 190 minutes
You have to go to Leicester-Peterborough to get off the British-Rail[/SNCF] metric (distance between places is the distance to London and back out) and even that I wouldn't like to bet on.
Yes, and farewell to the Tory vote in the newly conquered North, where the electorate was expecting a great revival of industrial employment.
I don't think they give a single shit.
And that's part if the tragedy of our age; the chancers, liars, spivs and free-marketer weirdos have been able to persuade the largely forgotten urban poor to vote against their own interests.
Cynically as well, because they never had any intention of lifting a finger to help. This was always only ever about "winning" a battle about trade liberalisation and to hell with any negative externalities.
I disagree. They will be wanting to win the next election as well.
They're fucking it up already. There's talk now of HS2 finishing at Birmingham - sorry, using existing capacity North of Birmingham.
I'll believe that the Tories are really interested in the North when they invest in the infrastructure to get fast trains between Yorkshire and Manchester. Leeds to Manchester is about 40 miles and trains take at least 70 minutes. Bedford is 50 miles from London and the fastest trains take around 40 minutes. But it's the North that doesn't need new infrastructure, apparently.
I live in Sheffield and when it shows it very difficult to move west as the passes can be easily blocked. The road through Woodhead needs to become a motoway. They could also restore the Woodhead tunnel for trains
Yes, and farewell to the Tory vote in the newly conquered North, where the electorate was expecting a great revival of industrial employment.
I don't think they give a single shit.
And that's part if the tragedy of our age; the chancers, liars, spivs and free-marketer weirdos have been able to persuade the largely forgotten urban poor to vote against their own interests.
Cynically as well, because they never had any intention of lifting a finger to help. This was always only ever about "winning" a battle about trade liberalisation and to hell with any negative externalities.
I disagree. They will be wanting to win the next election as well.
They're fucking it up already. There's talk now of HS2 finishing at Birmingham - sorry, using existing capacity North of Birmingham.
It was fucked up from the start by the assumption that all that was needed was to get people to London. It would be a significant improvement if the design recognised that for a lot of people in the north of Britain what they'd value is a rapid rail link that let's them get on a train and get off in Paris or Brussels, that London is of no interest but they would value better connectivity to the rest of Europe. I don't see relocating the London end of HS1 to Euston to make that possible in any of the estimates of cost over runs.
And, none of this HS2 business helps Bristol or Cardiff.
Yes, and farewell to the Tory vote in the newly conquered North, where the electorate was expecting a great revival of industrial employment.
I don't think they give a single shit.
And that's part if the tragedy of our age; the chancers, liars, spivs and free-marketer weirdos have been able to persuade the largely forgotten urban poor to vote against their own interests.
Cynically as well, because they never had any intention of lifting a finger to help. This was always only ever about "winning" a battle about trade liberalisation and to hell with any negative externalities.
I disagree. They will be wanting to win the next election as well.
But the last few years has shown that winning elections has very little to do with what you actually do and far more to do with what the media claim you did.
Exactly. The Tories will say all kinds of blatant stupidity, and morons like @telford will believe it and regurgitate it.
He never claimed to have believed it In any case blatant stupidity is never a good move.
Apologies: the belief part was courtesy, as a possibility of not being a troll. Thanks for clearing that up.
The regurgitating blatant stupidity part is a factual matter of record on this thread.
As a modest and humble person I refuse to take the credit
Arguably it hurts Wales in that Welsh taxes are going to support an English rail project rather than their own network.
The way Wales is served with trains is reason enough in itself to favour independence. To get from Bangor to Cardiff requires going through England.
That's at least as much a function of geography as it is anything else. The same journey by car is only possible (within a reasonable amount of time) by either going through the mountains or going through England, and even then it's still quicker to go by train via England than it is to drive while staying entirely within Wales.
Arguably it hurts Wales in that Welsh taxes are going to support an English rail project rather than their own network.
The way Wales is served with trains is reason enough in itself to favour independence. To get from Bangor to Cardiff requires going through England.
That's at least as much a function of geography as it is anything else. The same journey by car is only possible (within a reasonable amount of time) by either going through the mountains or going through England, and even then it's still quicker to go by train via England than it is to drive while staying entirely within Wales.
The choice to make transport links through the geography is a bigger factor than the geography itself. The Scottish highlands have some pretty interesting geography but you can still get a train from Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh. The Pennines are fairly significant too but the M62 will still take you from one side to the other. The point is that for most of the last 500 years Wales has been seen as adjunct to England, with no particular reason to be connected within itself. South Wales was only important in so far as it was connected to Bristol and London, the north only in so far as it provided a holiday destination for Mancunians and Liverpudlians and a link to Ireland. It does not have a transport network designed to serve the Welsh economy and people but to put Wales at the service of England.
But it used to be - there was a main line from Carmarthen to Pwlheli up the coast. It was removed.
Not really. What there was was a collection of separate lines that happened to have connections at Aberystwyth and Machynlleth (technically Dovey Junction, a few miles to the west). To the best of my knowledge it was never possible to do the whole journey on a single train, not least because it would have required reversals at each of those locations.
The short section from Aberystwyth to Machynlleth could just about be described as having once been a main line with a straight face, but Machynlleth - Pwllheli and Aberystwyth - Carmarthen were never more than secondary lines at best. Neither was the link from Afon Wen (near Pwllheli) via Caernarfon to Bangor (which required yet another reversal if coming from the south).
The choice to make transport links through the geography is a bigger factor than the geography itself.
True. But when a relatively flat route exists just a few miles to the east it makes no sense whatsoever to reject it purely because it happens to cross a boundary that hasn't had any real significance since the sixteenth century.
The choice to make transport links through the geography is a bigger factor than the geography itself.
True. But when a relatively flat route exists just a few miles to the east it makes no sense whatsoever to reject it purely because it happens to cross a boundary that hasn't had any real significance since the sixteenth century.
Except it's not a few miles to the east; it's massively out of the way. A perfectly good fast line could be built along the coast. It isn't.
As for the rest; dim ond pentyr o folycs arferol o'r ffycing Saeson hurt. (just a collection of quaint misconceptions from the misinformed neighbours in England)
A perfectly good fast line could be built along the coast.
You think? Even if all the missing coastal lines between Bangor and Cardiff were reinstated (not likely as some of them have been built over) and new links were put in to remove the need for three reversals, the journey would still take far longer than the current route via Shrewsbury. If you then doubled the whole route (ignoring the fact that there's no room to do so for a lot of it as it's wedged between the sea and cliffs) you might achieve a similar journey time to the Shrewsbury route.
So you'd be spending billions of pounds and fundamentally rearranging the geography of a quite nice bit of coastline just for the sake of avoiding the need for Bangor - Cardiff travellers to briefly venture onto the hated English soil. Seems a bit silly to me.
'Appen you're right with Cardiff, but I'm sure a continuous coast line could improve the 10hr + you would regularly see going from the SW to the NW.
It's an artefact of two things - the historical origins of the railway system, with main lines starting in London, and the loss of the branch lines that linked those main lines. Someone mentioned Bedford to Northampton above - that was easy before Beeching closed the line designed for that very journey.
If HS2 just succeeds in enabling London commuters to live a little further away from London then it will not really achieve very much for the rest of the country. This is my concern, Wales diversions aside; there are so many rail journeys where the sort of speed, capacity and regularity already enjoyed between Birmingham and London would seem an absolute luxury. And it's not just back of beyond to back of beyond - it's these links between major northern cities.
Comments
Prove it (that you made it up)!
Sounds quite plausible to me. Those loony Lefties will do anything to keep a Good Man down...
May I be forgiven...
Thanks for that. I just did not understand unprovoked attacks
Blair inherited a strong economy. That's why he was reluctant to change things for some time.
Deutsche Bank have an incredible list of dodgy deals and fines. Money laundering, for Russians naturally; the Libor scam; US sanctions busting; selling bad financial products, $7 billion fine; using a detective agency to spy on critics. I'm not saying Javid was involved. In fact, weren't the directors all Labour Party members?
Oh believe me, you're very provoking.
I'd be highly surprised if the board of Deutsche Bank were all members of the UK Labour party.
I am proud to be very thought provoking.
You flatter yourself.
OH.
You're a troll.
How cute.
Don't flatter yourself. "Provoking" and "thought provoking" are two very different things. You come across more as a troll than as someone who just wants to introduce new ideas.
I'm glad you've set us straight on that one.
BTW, the correct term might be 'thought-provoking'. The hyphen makes quite a difference to your meaning...
Boris Knows Best!
Brexshit Beats Bonkers Brussels!
That doesn't make much sense to me. Car manufacturers already make different versions of the same car to specifications in different markets. You can't tell me that a car driven in Sudan is made to the same standard as one destined for the EU.
The point is that the EU is a big market for UK-made cars. And the EU have made it perfectly clear that the only way that UK manufactures can continue having complete and free access to the EU is if the UK remains aligned.
Of course the UK manufacturers could make products to EU (US, Sudanese or anyone else's standards).
They could but most likely won't produce to EU standards, as if there is no national alignment agreement with the EU then there will be tariffs and checks like any other third country.
But that's always been part of the Brexit plan. British manufacturing and agriculture is being wound down. Exports of these will dwindle to almost nothing.
What the Tories want by disentangling from EU regulations is to be able to import anything they want from the world market, particularly things that are not allowed in the EU.
Because the prize is cheaper products from around the world and the cost is the total elimination of physical product exports.
I don't think they give a single shit.
And that's part if the tragedy of our age; the chancers, liars, spivs and free-marketer weirdos have been able to persuade the largely forgotten urban poor to vote against their own interests.
Cynically as well, because they never had any intention of lifting a finger to help. This was always only ever about "winning" a battle about trade liberalisation and to hell with any negative externalities.
I disagree. They will be wanting to win the next election as well.
But the last few years has shown that winning elections has very little to do with what you actually do and far more to do with what the media claim you did.
They may not be decisive considerations. But I'd want to see evidence before I assumed that they're not.
Exactly. The Tories will say all kinds of blatant stupidity, and morons like @telford will believe it and regurgitate it.
He never claimed to have believed it In any case blatant stupidity is never a good move.
Apologies: the belief part was courtesy, as a possibility of not being a troll. Thanks for clearing that up.
The regurgitating blatant stupidity part is a factual matter of record on this thread.
I dunno, I think Mr Johnson's priorities are exactly the opposite of what you suggest. I think his priorities are:
1. Be PM
2. Be popular
3. Wait, what, people can have other political goals beyond those two?
Brexit is purely a means of achieving (1) and (2).
Your interpretation supposes that he wants Brexit as a matter of principle. The idea that Mr Johnson wants anything as a matter of principle flies in the face of all empirical evidence.
As a modest and humble person I refuse to take the credit
They're fucking it up already. There's talk now of HS2 finishing at Birmingham - sorry, using existing capacity North of Birmingham.
I'll believe that the Tories are really interested in the North when they invest in the infrastructure to get fast trains between Yorkshire and Manchester. Leeds to Manchester is about 40 miles and trains take at least 70 minutes. Bedford is 50 miles from London and the fastest trains take around 40 minutes. But it's the North that doesn't need new infrastructure, apparently.
The shires are even more toried, at least there is a bit of infrastructure up north
Bedford to Northampton is 30 miles and trains take 90 minutes (actually better than I thought I forgot about BStJ)
Bedford Cam is the same and takes 120 minutes
Bedford Leeds is 190 minutes
You have to go to Leicester-Peterborough to get off the British-Rail[/SNCF] metric (distance between places is the distance to London and back out) and even that I wouldn't like to bet on.
I live in Sheffield and when it shows it very difficult to move west as the passes can be easily blocked. The road through Woodhead needs to become a motoway. They could also restore the Woodhead tunnel for trains
And, none of this HS2 business helps Bristol or Cardiff.
The way Wales is served with trains is reason enough in itself to favour independence. To get from Bangor to Cardiff requires going through England.
That very statement exhibits considerable vanity.
That's at least as much a function of geography as it is anything else. The same journey by car is only possible (within a reasonable amount of time) by either going through the mountains or going through England, and even then it's still quicker to go by train via England than it is to drive while staying entirely within Wales.
The choice to make transport links through the geography is a bigger factor than the geography itself. The Scottish highlands have some pretty interesting geography but you can still get a train from Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh. The Pennines are fairly significant too but the M62 will still take you from one side to the other. The point is that for most of the last 500 years Wales has been seen as adjunct to England, with no particular reason to be connected within itself. South Wales was only important in so far as it was connected to Bristol and London, the north only in so far as it provided a holiday destination for Mancunians and Liverpudlians and a link to Ireland. It does not have a transport network designed to serve the Welsh economy and people but to put Wales at the service of England.
Not really. What there was was a collection of separate lines that happened to have connections at Aberystwyth and Machynlleth (technically Dovey Junction, a few miles to the west). To the best of my knowledge it was never possible to do the whole journey on a single train, not least because it would have required reversals at each of those locations.
The short section from Aberystwyth to Machynlleth could just about be described as having once been a main line with a straight face, but Machynlleth - Pwllheli and Aberystwyth - Carmarthen were never more than secondary lines at best. Neither was the link from Afon Wen (near Pwllheli) via Caernarfon to Bangor (which required yet another reversal if coming from the south).
True. But when a relatively flat route exists just a few miles to the east it makes no sense whatsoever to reject it purely because it happens to cross a boundary that hasn't had any real significance since the sixteenth century.
Except it's not a few miles to the east; it's massively out of the way. A perfectly good fast line could be built along the coast. It isn't.
As for the rest; dim ond pentyr o folycs arferol o'r ffycing Saeson hurt. (just a collection of quaint misconceptions from the misinformed neighbours in England)
You think? Even if all the missing coastal lines between Bangor and Cardiff were reinstated (not likely as some of them have been built over) and new links were put in to remove the need for three reversals, the journey would still take far longer than the current route via Shrewsbury. If you then doubled the whole route (ignoring the fact that there's no room to do so for a lot of it as it's wedged between the sea and cliffs) you might achieve a similar journey time to the Shrewsbury route.
So you'd be spending billions of pounds and fundamentally rearranging the geography of a quite nice bit of coastline just for the sake of avoiding the need for Bangor - Cardiff travellers to briefly venture onto the hated English soil. Seems a bit silly to me.
It's an artefact of two things - the historical origins of the railway system, with main lines starting in London, and the loss of the branch lines that linked those main lines. Someone mentioned Bedford to Northampton above - that was easy before Beeching closed the line designed for that very journey.
If HS2 just succeeds in enabling London commuters to live a little further away from London then it will not really achieve very much for the rest of the country. This is my concern, Wales diversions aside; there are so many rail journeys where the sort of speed, capacity and regularity already enjoyed between Birmingham and London would seem an absolute luxury. And it's not just back of beyond to back of beyond - it's these links between major northern cities.