If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
It's a poor point.
HS2 is capital expenditure spread over 10-20 years which will generate a economic RoR for the UK economy once complete.
This is increasing OpEx year on year with virtually no economic benefit.
But Shapps is saying things like "railways are competing with Zoom", which is true, but then the next question is "why build more of them?"
And also, the government should not be saying things like the tax payer has bailed out the railways during COVID. Again, if the government wants to get all Dr Beeching, then don't build new railways.
But no journalist has raised this with Shapps.
HS2 is supported by all main parties for a reason.
It delivers a step change in fast freight and passenger rail capacity right down the spine of the country, and will facilitate modal shift from air to rail.
I couldn't think of anything more unpopular the government could do than another round of Beeching closures, short of shooting kids.
Well it did until Shapps decided to utterly dice and splice it.
Literally the only decent bit of news I've heard in weeks is the investigation of extending it to Preston rather than the Golborne Link (mainly because there are capacity issues between Preston and Manchester that need to be fixed and there aren't any other options)
Oh, that's excellent - it was so disgraceful to scrap the GL for motives not obviously of the most illustrious (given what was happening with the 1922 at the same time).
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
A load of bollocks in what sense? I'm no fan of Grant Shapps / Michael Green but at least he has had the cojones to abolish the moronic franchising system – an international laughing stock – after decades of fiasco and farce.
They announced a series of exciting rail projects which were physically impossible (with the journey times quoted) and operationally impossible thanks to the huge gaps in the previously announced plans actually reducing instead of increasing capacity.
Not a single bit of work has been carried out by NR or outside consultants to flesh out the announced plans as actual proposals. Because the announcement was laughable bollocks. Same as when Chris Grayling was in the chair and used to propose that a "digital railway" was the non-building solution to the Castlefield Corridor bottleneck.
As for franchises, lets await what happens. Remember that the "nationalised" operators are operated by the private sector by direct edict from the DfT. Which is the same as when they were "privatised". Only when the entire framework is proposed for abolition can we consider awarding any credit. Which means Great British Railways being enacted. Spoiler alert - no work is being carried on on that either.
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
The problem is there are an awful lot of strikes coming down the line (teachers, most of the public sector.....) and some of those will be unpopular with potential Labour voters when they have to take a day off to look after little bobby tables.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
It's a poor point.
HS2 is capital expenditure spread over 10-20 years which will generate a economic RoR for the UK economy once complete.
This is increasing OpEx year on year with virtually no economic benefit.
But Shapps is saying things like "railways are competing with Zoom", which is true, but then the next question is "why build more of them?"
And also, the government should not be saying things like the tax payer has bailed out the railways during COVID. Again, if the government wants to get all Dr Beeching, then don't build new railways.
But no journalist has raised this with Shapps.
HS2 is supported by all main parties for a reason.
It delivers a step change in fast freight and passenger rail capacity right down the spine of the country, and will facilitate modal shift from air to rail.
I couldn't think of anything more unpopular the government could do than another round of Beeching closures, short of shooting kids.
Putting up fuel duty.
Cutting fuel duty would not just be a popular policy with those suffering from the cost of living - it would also be a great political move as the greenie metropolitans known as the Opposition would come out against it. Would play as well at getting Brexit done in the Red Wall seats.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
The problem is there are an awful lot of strikes coming down the line (teachers, most of the public sector.....) and some of those will be unpopular with potential Labour voters when they have to take a day off to look after little bobby tables.
The next 12 months is going to peak strike season. The FBU will be voting on it soon, and need to do it before the government bring in all the changes they want, including banning fire fighters from striking!
Much of the motorway network is getting old and operating at 3x the capacity it was designed for. Spaghetti junction for instance just turned 50 and is now carrying over 200,000 vehicles per day, it was designed for 70,000 per day.
Yet bugger all new motorway network has been built since the 1970s. We should be looking to double or triple our motorway capacity to add new networks, new capacity, relieve traffic and mean people and goods don't need to take detours to or through cities they don't even intend to go to as that's the only route available.
That would do far more "levelling up" than any amount of rail investment ever could, let alone £100bn on one route alone.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
We aren't going to build anything. People do not want to be delayed by other people or suffer a motorway or railway near their house or frankly other houses near their house.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Depends where the quarry material ends up though, surely?
Were all 100 lorries driving to the same distribution point?
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Depends where the quarry material ends up though, surely?
Were all 100 lorries driving to the same distribution point?
AIUI a lot of those quarry runs are to major depots in London. So, yes.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
A load of bollocks in what sense? I'm no fan of Grant Shapps / Michael Green but at least he has had the cojones to abolish the moronic franchising system – an international laughing stock – after decades of fiasco and farce.
They announced a series of exciting rail projects which were physically impossible (with the journey times quoted) and operationally impossible thanks to the huge gaps in the previously announced plans actually reducing instead of increasing capacity.
Not a single bit of work has been carried out by NR or outside consultants to flesh out the announced plans as actual proposals. Because the announcement was laughable bollocks. Same as when Chris Grayling was in the chair and used to propose that a "digital railway" was the non-building solution to the Castlefield Corridor bottleneck.
As for franchises, lets await what happens. Remember that the "nationalised" operators are operated by the private sector by direct edict from the DfT. Which is the same as when they were "privatised". Only when the entire framework is proposed for abolition can we consider awarding any credit. Which means Great British Railways being enacted. Spoiler alert - no work is being carried on on that either.
2 quick demonstrations.
1) On a line that runs at multiple speeds you can have either more trains (all running at the same speed) or some faster trains at the cost of longer gaps between trains (and so fewer services). The part of the IRP that Network Rail deny all knowledge about promised both more local services and faster trains. That just isn't possible.
2) On the ECML the claim was that 10 minutes could be cut off the journey time. That simply isn't possible because there isn't any parts of the route between York and London where additional time savings can be made. Network rail surveyed the route back in 2018 and I think for a total cost of £10bn it was possible to knock 3 minutes off journey times.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Indeed.
Fundamentally, the advantage of railways is a much lower coefficient of friction, as well as a resilient trackbed: they can carry far heavier loads for long distances for limited outlays of energy without chewing up the road service and with only a couple of members of staff.
When you add on top how regulated and signalled they are they are much safer too.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Having such little motorway capacity is what generates congestion as you are funnelling everyone through the same routes. Plus if the motorway is closed due to an accident like an overturned lorry shutting down the M6 over the weekend, then towns or cities become rat-runs instead.
If there were more capacity, there'd be more alternative routes, so you wouldn't be funnelling everyone through the same one and so there'd be less congestion, plus more slack in the system when one part of it gets shut down.
Owen Jones today says "Macron is the handmaiden of fascism" (pushing it a bit i think)
"So what actually happened in the second round of the French parliamentary elections when Macron’s candidates were eliminated, and the choice was between the left — a coalition of the centre-left and left headed by Jean-Luc Mélenchon? *72%* of Macron’s voters simply abstained, another 12% voted for the far-right, and a mere 16% voted for the left".
"These ‘centrist’ voters had a straightforward choice: do you want to stop fascism or not? But their antipathy to the left was so overwhelming that they chose, largely, to sit on their hands".
Mr. Sandpit, that, and axing the green levy on energy, are very obvious, useful and politically sound measures.
That they haven't even been suggested, let alone implemented, means the PM's either a full-blown idiot, or his very green wife has veto over policy. Or both, of course. He could be brainles *and* spineless.
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time
Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
A load of bollocks in what sense? I'm no fan of Grant Shapps / Michael Green but at least he has had the cojones to abolish the moronic franchising system – an international laughing stock – after decades of fiasco and farce.
They announced a series of exciting rail projects which were physically impossible (with the journey times quoted) and operationally impossible thanks to the huge gaps in the previously announced plans actually reducing instead of increasing capacity.
Not a single bit of work has been carried out by NR or outside consultants to flesh out the announced plans as actual proposals. Because the announcement was laughable bollocks. Same as when Chris Grayling was in the chair and used to propose that a "digital railway" was the non-building solution to the Castlefield Corridor bottleneck.
As for franchises, lets await what happens. Remember that the "nationalised" operators are operated by the private sector by direct edict from the DfT. Which is the same as when they were "privatised". Only when the entire framework is proposed for abolition can we consider awarding any credit. Which means Great British Railways being enacted. Spoiler alert - no work is being carried on on that either.
2 quick demonstrations.
1) On a line that runs at multiple speeds you can have either more trains (all running at the same speed) or some faster trains at the cost of longer gaps between trains (and so fewer services). The part of the IRP that Network Rail deny all knowledge about promised both more local services and faster trains. That just isn't possible.
2) On the ECML the claim was that 10 minutes could be cut off the journey time. That simply isn't possible because there isn't any parts of the route between York and London where additional time savings can be made. Network rail surveyed the route back in 2018 and I think for a total cost of £10bn it was possible to knock 3 minutes off journey times.
Not the first time. I recall at least one Tory minister at the time of the Major privatisations demanding fast first class trains fopr his ilk, and cheap slow second class trains - or maybe they meant third class in their urge to get back to pre-1921 - for secretaries and the like, and finding it very hard to understand why this was not achievable.
Scores of post office operators wrongly accused of embezzlement by the Post Office due to faulty accounting software, may be disqualified from a dedicated compensation scheme.
At least 170 branch managers have been told that they may not be repaid money wrongly deducted from their wages in what has been described as “the biggest miscarriage of justice in UK history” because they were unaware of the scheme, which was launched for just three months during the 2020 lockdown.
More than 700 branch managers were convicted of fraud between 2000 and 2014 after Horizon, a new computer system installed by the Post Office, showed apparent shortfalls in their accounts. Hundreds more were ordered to pay sums of up to five figures after being accused of stealing Post Office funds.
Such problems wouldn’t crop up if the pension system was set up properly. Right now it’s just a massive Ponzi fraud: robbing the young to bribe the old to vote Tory.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Depends where the quarry material ends up though, surely?
Were all 100 lorries driving to the same distribution point?
Indeed. Despite all the anti-car dogma in recent decades that has prevented new infrastructure investments going into new motorway etc, the simple reality is that railways have for a very long time been falling not rising as a share of goods transported.
Because in the past multiple trains going from A to B was economically viable. Train from coal mine, to coal power plant, could carry tremendous amounts of coal from the same source, to the same destination.
The death of coal, has been the death of much of the freight demand, so people keep magicking up other reasons to justify it instead, rather than acknowledging what really works and people really want, which is lorries because they are far more versatile when huge volumes of the same good, going from the same source, to the same destination, is not how the modern economy works.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Having such little motorway capacity is what generates congestion as you are funnelling everyone through the same routes. Plus if the motorway is closed due to an accident like an overturned lorry shutting down the M6 over the weekend, then towns or cities become rat-runs instead.
If there were more capacity, there'd be more alternative routes, so you wouldn't be funnelling everyone through the same one and so there'd be less congestion, plus more slack in the system when one part of it gets shut down.
Doesn't answer the basic inefficiency of lorries in energy, staffing, and c02 production (on which also see concrete, manufacture of).
Scores of post office operators wrongly accused of embezzlement by the Post Office due to faulty accounting software, may be disqualified from a dedicated compensation scheme.
At least 170 branch managers have been told that they may not be repaid money wrongly deducted from their wages in what has been described as “the biggest miscarriage of justice in UK history” because they were unaware of the scheme, which was launched for just three months during the 2020 lockdown.
More than 700 branch managers were convicted of fraud between 2000 and 2014 after Horizon, a new computer system installed by the Post Office, showed apparent shortfalls in their accounts. Hundreds more were ordered to pay sums of up to five figures after being accused of stealing Post Office funds.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Indeed.
Fundamentally, the advantage of railways is a much lower coefficient of friction, as well as a resilient trackbed: they can carry far heavier loads for long distances for limited outlays of energy without chewing up the road service and with only a couple of members of staff.
When you add on top how regulated and signalled they are they are much safer too.
Absolutely fantastic for the days when the economy operated by needing tonnes of the same good like coal, going to the same destination, like the coal power plant.
Not so good for the modern economy. But that doesn't suit the agenda some people have to push.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Having such little motorway capacity is what generates congestion as you are funnelling everyone through the same routes. Plus if the motorway is closed due to an accident like an overturned lorry shutting down the M6 over the weekend, then towns or cities become rat-runs instead.
If there were more capacity, there'd be more alternative routes, so you wouldn't be funnelling everyone through the same one and so there'd be less congestion, plus more slack in the system when one part of it gets shut down.
Given you love of freeways and hire and fire policies the USA is thataway...
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
A load of bollocks in what sense? I'm no fan of Grant Shapps / Michael Green but at least he has had the cojones to abolish the moronic franchising system – an international laughing stock – after decades of fiasco and farce.
They announced a series of exciting rail projects which were physically impossible (with the journey times quoted) and operationally impossible thanks to the huge gaps in the previously announced plans actually reducing instead of increasing capacity.
Not a single bit of work has been carried out by NR or outside consultants to flesh out the announced plans as actual proposals. Because the announcement was laughable bollocks. Same as when Chris Grayling was in the chair and used to propose that a "digital railway" was the non-building solution to the Castlefield Corridor bottleneck.
As for franchises, lets await what happens. Remember that the "nationalised" operators are operated by the private sector by direct edict from the DfT. Which is the same as when they were "privatised". Only when the entire framework is proposed for abolition can we consider awarding any credit. Which means Great British Railways being enacted. Spoiler alert - no work is being carried on on that either.
The abolition of franchising is not sufficient to sort out the railway, but it's a necessary first step. Regardless of the myriad holes in Shapps' strategy, at least he has had the cojones to rid of us of the Virgins, the Midland Mainlines, the Southerns and all the rest of the chiselling franchisees who embarrass the nation.
Just having one backside to kick – Great British Railways – will stop the pathetic blame game where everyone points the finger at each other for their daily cockups. And the absurd spectacle of regular renationalisations when it emerges that various franchisees can't cut it.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Indeed.
Fundamentally, the advantage of railways is a much lower coefficient of friction, as well as a resilient trackbed: they can carry far heavier loads for long distances for limited outlays of energy without chewing up the road service and with only a couple of members of staff.
When you add on top how regulated and signalled they are they are much safer too.
Huh? Why do you Tories then want “agency” staff to come in as signallers and dispatchers to break the strike?? It takes at least 12 months to train a signaller. It is a tricky job. Any accidents would be 100% the fault of the government.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Having such little motorway capacity is what generates congestion as you are funnelling everyone through the same routes. Plus if the motorway is closed due to an accident like an overturned lorry shutting down the M6 over the weekend, then towns or cities become rat-runs instead.
If there were more capacity, there'd be more alternative routes, so you wouldn't be funnelling everyone through the same one and so there'd be less congestion, plus more slack in the system when one part of it gets shut down.
Doesn't answer the basic inefficiency of lorries in energy, staffing, and c02 production (on which also see concrete, manufacture of).
Lorries are extremely efficient, if you need to get a lorryload of a good from A to B directly.
That's why people use them. That's why despite the lack of investment in road infrastructure, and the fuel escalator going in, demand for them has increased as a share of goods rather than fell.
If you want a trainload of goods going from A to B, then its a different story. Especially if you have a train station at A and B. But post-coal, that's not usually the case anymore.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Indeed.
Fundamentally, the advantage of railways is a much lower coefficient of friction, as well as a resilient trackbed: they can carry far heavier loads for long distances for limited outlays of energy without chewing up the road service and with only a couple of members of staff.
When you add on top how regulated and signalled they are they are much safer too.
Absolutely fantastic for the days when the economy operated by needing tonnes of the same good like coal, going to the same destination, like the coal power plant.
Not so good for the modern economy. But that doesn't suit the agenda some people have to push.
Where do you think the hard core for your motorways comes from? Your Crossrail? Construction in London and the HC? Clue: there is precious little hard rock in the HC.
Have a look at the quarry materials flows. Merehead limestone, for instance.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
A load of bollocks in what sense? I'm no fan of Grant Shapps / Michael Green but at least he has had the cojones to abolish the moronic franchising system – an international laughing stock – after decades of fiasco and farce.
They announced a series of exciting rail projects which were physically impossible (with the journey times quoted) and operationally impossible thanks to the huge gaps in the previously announced plans actually reducing instead of increasing capacity.
Not a single bit of work has been carried out by NR or outside consultants to flesh out the announced plans as actual proposals. Because the announcement was laughable bollocks. Same as when Chris Grayling was in the chair and used to propose that a "digital railway" was the non-building solution to the Castlefield Corridor bottleneck.
As for franchises, lets await what happens. Remember that the "nationalised" operators are operated by the private sector by direct edict from the DfT. Which is the same as when they were "privatised". Only when the entire framework is proposed for abolition can we consider awarding any credit. Which means Great British Railways being enacted. Spoiler alert - no work is being carried on on that either.
The abolition of franchising is not sufficient to sort out the railway, but it's a necessary first step. Regardless of the myriad holes in Shapps' strategy, at least he has had the cojones to rid of us of the Virgins, the Midland Mainlines, the Southerns and all the rest of the chiselling franchisees who embarrass the nation.
Just having one backside to kick – Great British Railways – will stop the pathetic blame game where everyone points the finger at each other for their daily cockups. And the absurd spectacle of regular renationalisations when it emerges that various franchisees can't cut it.
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time
Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”
Looks like even Labour now ruling out EEA yes and if anything the choice at the next general election will be between Boris' Brexit Deal or Starmer's rehashed version of May's Brexit Deal. Might be traction for the LDs then to become the rejoin EEA party as they have no redwall target seats to worry about unlike Labour, all LD seats and virtually all LD target seats having voted Remain
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Having such little motorway capacity is what generates congestion as you are funnelling everyone through the same routes. Plus if the motorway is closed due to an accident like an overturned lorry shutting down the M6 over the weekend, then towns or cities become rat-runs instead.
If there were more capacity, there'd be more alternative routes, so you wouldn't be funnelling everyone through the same one and so there'd be less congestion, plus more slack in the system when one part of it gets shut down.
Given you love of freeways and hire and fire policies the USA is thataway...
That’s as childish as telling left-inclined voters to piss off to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
A load of bollocks in what sense? I'm no fan of Grant Shapps / Michael Green but at least he has had the cojones to abolish the moronic franchising system – an international laughing stock – after decades of fiasco and farce.
They announced a series of exciting rail projects which were physically impossible (with the journey times quoted) and operationally impossible thanks to the huge gaps in the previously announced plans actually reducing instead of increasing capacity.
Not a single bit of work has been carried out by NR or outside consultants to flesh out the announced plans as actual proposals. Because the announcement was laughable bollocks. Same as when Chris Grayling was in the chair and used to propose that a "digital railway" was the non-building solution to the Castlefield Corridor bottleneck.
As for franchises, lets await what happens. Remember that the "nationalised" operators are operated by the private sector by direct edict from the DfT. Which is the same as when they were "privatised". Only when the entire framework is proposed for abolition can we consider awarding any credit. Which means Great British Railways being enacted. Spoiler alert - no work is being carried on on that either.
The abolition of franchising is not sufficient to sort out the railway, but it's a necessary first step. Regardless of the myriad holes in Shapps' strategy, at least he has had the cojones to rid of us of the Virgins, the Midland Mainlines, the Southerns and all the rest of the chiselling franchisees who embarrass the nation.
Just having one backside to kick – Great British Railways – will stop the pathetic blame game where everyone points the finger at each other for their daily cockups. And the absurd spectacle of regular renationalisations when it emerges that various franchisees can't cut it.
I'm confused.
PB Tories:
"Nicola" nationalised the Scottish railways! Baaad SNP, bunch of commies, etc. "Boris" nationalising the rUK railways! ... embarrassed silence.
This is why BigG unless he is against restoring the Triple Lock is a hypocrite
Link Pensioners increases to Public Sector pay increases backdated to 2010 then see the outcry
We received 3.1% this year and on the wider point the state pension is just £9,300 pa and for the majority of pensioners they have no other means of increasing their income as they age
However, I am very uncomfortable with an10% increase next year but for the majority of pensioners it will be an important due to the low rate of UK pensions
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
A load of bollocks in what sense? I'm no fan of Grant Shapps / Michael Green but at least he has had the cojones to abolish the moronic franchising system – an international laughing stock – after decades of fiasco and farce.
They announced a series of exciting rail projects which were physically impossible (with the journey times quoted) and operationally impossible thanks to the huge gaps in the previously announced plans actually reducing instead of increasing capacity.
Not a single bit of work has been carried out by NR or outside consultants to flesh out the announced plans as actual proposals. Because the announcement was laughable bollocks. Same as when Chris Grayling was in the chair and used to propose that a "digital railway" was the non-building solution to the Castlefield Corridor bottleneck.
As for franchises, lets await what happens. Remember that the "nationalised" operators are operated by the private sector by direct edict from the DfT. Which is the same as when they were "privatised". Only when the entire framework is proposed for abolition can we consider awarding any credit. Which means Great British Railways being enacted. Spoiler alert - no work is being carried on on that either.
The abolition of franchising is not sufficient to sort out the railway, but it's a necessary first step. Regardless of the myriad holes in Shapps' strategy, at least he has had the cojones to rid of us of the Virgins, the Midland Mainlines, the Southerns and all the rest of the chiselling franchisees who embarrass the nation.
Just having one backside to kick – Great British Railways – will stop the pathetic blame game where everyone points the finger at each other for their daily cockups. And the absurd spectacle of regular renationalisations when it emerges that various franchisees can't cut it.
I'm confused.
PB Tories:
"Nicola" nationalised the Scottish railways! Baaad SNP, bunch of commies, etc. "Boris" nationalising the rUK railways! ... embarrassed silence.
rGB
NI, as so often, is a bit… err… [insert patronising noun of choice].
The solution to a better railway is not "build more roads". FFS.
The solution to better transport is.
Only in your world....
No, in the real world.
You keep moaning about capacity, when the share of rail when it comes to freight has been falling not rising.
It is the motorway network that is stretched to capacity. It is the motorway network that is running at triple the capacity it was designed for in most places.
Triple the motorway network bringing the current routes back down to the demand they were built for, and having new alternative routes available, and lets see how much economic growth and potential that unleashes. While adding the capacity of millions of new vehicles per day, not hundreds or thousands of them.
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time
Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”
Looks like even Labour now ruling out EEA yes. May be traction for the LDs then to become the rejoin EEA party as they have no redwall target seats to worry about unlike Labour, all LD seats and virtually all LD target seats having voted Remain
Labour isn't stupid - EEA isn't going to be on the cards until a significant percentage of older Brexit voters are dead...
The Lib Dems will have an EEA or similar policy as it appeals to both their core and target voters.
Mr. Sandpit, that, and axing the green levy on energy, are very obvious, useful and politically sound measures.
That they haven't even been suggested, let alone implemented, means the PM's either a full-blown idiot, or his very green wife has veto over policy. Or both, of course. He could be brainles *and* spineless.
That, and the Treasury are loving the revenue, while the political heat is on the guy in No.10 rather than the guy in No.11
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
A load of bollocks in what sense? I'm no fan of Grant Shapps / Michael Green but at least he has had the cojones to abolish the moronic franchising system – an international laughing stock – after decades of fiasco and farce.
They announced a series of exciting rail projects which were physically impossible (with the journey times quoted) and operationally impossible thanks to the huge gaps in the previously announced plans actually reducing instead of increasing capacity.
Not a single bit of work has been carried out by NR or outside consultants to flesh out the announced plans as actual proposals. Because the announcement was laughable bollocks. Same as when Chris Grayling was in the chair and used to propose that a "digital railway" was the non-building solution to the Castlefield Corridor bottleneck.
As for franchises, lets await what happens. Remember that the "nationalised" operators are operated by the private sector by direct edict from the DfT. Which is the same as when they were "privatised". Only when the entire framework is proposed for abolition can we consider awarding any credit. Which means Great British Railways being enacted. Spoiler alert - no work is being carried on on that either.
The abolition of franchising is not sufficient to sort out the railway, but it's a necessary first step. Regardless of the myriad holes in Shapps' strategy, at least he has had the cojones to rid of us of the Virgins, the Midland Mainlines, the Southerns and all the rest of the chiselling franchisees who embarrass the nation.
Just having one backside to kick – Great British Railways – will stop the pathetic blame game where everyone points the finger at each other for their daily cockups. And the absurd spectacle of regular renationalisations when it emerges that various franchisees can't cut it.
I'm confused.
PB Tories:
"Nicola" nationalised the Scottish railways! Baaad SNP, bunch of commies, etc. "Boris" nationalising the rUK railways! ... embarrassed silence.
Not a Tory - but if you want my opinion, both bad. Privatise and cut the subsidies for the lot of them.
Though if I was to say any was less bad, I'd say Nicola. Given the rural, low density nature of Scotland, it might make sense to subsidise transport there, unlike in England.
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time
Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”
Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.
Links to the Parliamentary answer to the question of Triple Lock restoration.
I get the Pension next year but think its a disgrace its going up more than triple the rate being offered by HMG to railworkers nurses teachers and many others.
My suggestion of linking Pensions to Public Sector Pay backdated to 2010 would result in a 17% cut rather than a 10% rise
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
A load of bollocks in what sense? I'm no fan of Grant Shapps / Michael Green but at least he has had the cojones to abolish the moronic franchising system – an international laughing stock – after decades of fiasco and farce.
They announced a series of exciting rail projects which were physically impossible (with the journey times quoted) and operationally impossible thanks to the huge gaps in the previously announced plans actually reducing instead of increasing capacity.
Not a single bit of work has been carried out by NR or outside consultants to flesh out the announced plans as actual proposals. Because the announcement was laughable bollocks. Same as when Chris Grayling was in the chair and used to propose that a "digital railway" was the non-building solution to the Castlefield Corridor bottleneck.
As for franchises, lets await what happens. Remember that the "nationalised" operators are operated by the private sector by direct edict from the DfT. Which is the same as when they were "privatised". Only when the entire framework is proposed for abolition can we consider awarding any credit. Which means Great British Railways being enacted. Spoiler alert - no work is being carried on on that either.
The abolition of franchising is not sufficient to sort out the railway, but it's a necessary first step. Regardless of the myriad holes in Shapps' strategy, at least he has had the cojones to rid of us of the Virgins, the Midland Mainlines, the Southerns and all the rest of the chiselling franchisees who embarrass the nation.
Just having one backside to kick – Great British Railways – will stop the pathetic blame game where everyone points the finger at each other for their daily cockups. And the absurd spectacle of regular renationalisations when it emerges that various franchisees can't cut it.
They will become a concessionaire under GBR. The franchising model ends this year. All the railways will operate under a single brand under DfT control (similar to the Overground and TfL in London).
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
A load of bollocks in what sense? I'm no fan of Grant Shapps / Michael Green but at least he has had the cojones to abolish the moronic franchising system – an international laughing stock – after decades of fiasco and farce.
They announced a series of exciting rail projects which were physically impossible (with the journey times quoted) and operationally impossible thanks to the huge gaps in the previously announced plans actually reducing instead of increasing capacity.
Not a single bit of work has been carried out by NR or outside consultants to flesh out the announced plans as actual proposals. Because the announcement was laughable bollocks. Same as when Chris Grayling was in the chair and used to propose that a "digital railway" was the non-building solution to the Castlefield Corridor bottleneck.
As for franchises, lets await what happens. Remember that the "nationalised" operators are operated by the private sector by direct edict from the DfT. Which is the same as when they were "privatised". Only when the entire framework is proposed for abolition can we consider awarding any credit. Which means Great British Railways being enacted. Spoiler alert - no work is being carried on on that either.
The abolition of franchising is not sufficient to sort out the railway, but it's a necessary first step. Regardless of the myriad holes in Shapps' strategy, at least he has had the cojones to rid of us of the Virgins, the Midland Mainlines, the Southerns and all the rest of the chiselling franchisees who embarrass the nation.
Just having one backside to kick – Great British Railways – will stop the pathetic blame game where everyone points the finger at each other for their daily cockups. And the absurd spectacle of regular renationalisations when it emerges that various franchisees can't cut it.
I'm confused.
PB Tories:
"Nicola" nationalised the Scottish railways! Baaad SNP, bunch of commies, etc. "Boris" nationalising the rUK railways! ... embarrassed silence.
rGB
NI, as so often, is a bit… err… [insert patronising noun of choice].
Of course, quite right; the NI railways are a standalone system entirely owned by the NI gmt since, it seems, 1958. Apologies.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Having such little motorway capacity is what generates congestion as you are funnelling everyone through the same routes. Plus if the motorway is closed due to an accident like an overturned lorry shutting down the M6 over the weekend, then towns or cities become rat-runs instead.
If there were more capacity, there'd be more alternative routes, so you wouldn't be funnelling everyone through the same one and so there'd be less congestion, plus more slack in the system when one part of it gets shut down.
Given you love of freeways and hire and fire policies the USA is thataway...
That’s as childish as telling left-inclined voters to piss off to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
I'm very much of the viewpoint that if you prefer how things are done elsewhere the sane approach isn't to force your desires on others but to move to a place where what you desire already exists.
As someone who has worked in both the rail and the road sector, they each have crippling cultural problems. General public awareness of the issues is laughably low.
The real solution to transport (maritime, aviation, rail and road) problems is a drastic reduction in demand for moving goods and people, especially over long distances. The planet is not (yet) ready to listen.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
A load of bollocks in what sense? I'm no fan of Grant Shapps / Michael Green but at least he has had the cojones to abolish the moronic franchising system – an international laughing stock – after decades of fiasco and farce.
They announced a series of exciting rail projects which were physically impossible (with the journey times quoted) and operationally impossible thanks to the huge gaps in the previously announced plans actually reducing instead of increasing capacity.
Not a single bit of work has been carried out by NR or outside consultants to flesh out the announced plans as actual proposals. Because the announcement was laughable bollocks. Same as when Chris Grayling was in the chair and used to propose that a "digital railway" was the non-building solution to the Castlefield Corridor bottleneck.
As for franchises, lets await what happens. Remember that the "nationalised" operators are operated by the private sector by direct edict from the DfT. Which is the same as when they were "privatised". Only when the entire framework is proposed for abolition can we consider awarding any credit. Which means Great British Railways being enacted. Spoiler alert - no work is being carried on on that either.
The abolition of franchising is not sufficient to sort out the railway, but it's a necessary first step. Regardless of the myriad holes in Shapps' strategy, at least he has had the cojones to rid of us of the Virgins, the Midland Mainlines, the Southerns and all the rest of the chiselling franchisees who embarrass the nation.
Just having one backside to kick – Great British Railways – will stop the pathetic blame game where everyone points the finger at each other for their daily cockups. And the absurd spectacle of regular renationalisations when it emerges that various franchisees can't cut it.
I'm confused.
PB Tories:
"Nicola" nationalised the Scottish railways! Baaad SNP, bunch of commies, etc. "Boris" nationalising the rUK railways! ... embarrassed silence.
Indeed – last time I counted at least four rUK franchises were nationalised...
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time
Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”
Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.
Don’t disagree but an EEA type future looks to be out of the question if consensus builds around FOM. I’m hoping/assuming any form of CU will become effectively impossible within a year or two as some larger trade deals kick in (e.g. the Pacific).
This is why BigG unless he is against restoring the Triple Lock is a hypocrite
Link Pensioners increases to Public Sector pay increases backdated to 2010 then see the outcry
Why 2010, why not link it back to earnings backdated to when the link with earnings was broken ?
Because Austerity doesnt impact Tory Pensioners and the link with earnings included private sector wages which arent taxpayer funded. Frozen public Sector Pay is the best way to enlighten Pensioners that their benefit monies doesnt grow on trees
Links to the Parliamentary answer to the question of Triple Lock restoration.
I get the Pension next year but think its a disgrace its going up more than triple the rate being offered by HMG to railworkers nurses teachers and many others.
My suggestion of linking Pensions to Public Sector Pay backdated to 2010 would result in a 17% cut rather than a 10% rise
Hmmm.
Compared to peers, we have wages reasonably high and state pensions very low, so it is a rational move.
Interesting that no one is having a pop at benefits going up with inflation, which are perhaps relatively higher than pensions.
(NO I'm not defending a particular proposal. I'd say that the 5% agreed for train drivers in Scotland is perhaps a reasonable yardstick.
I expect OhNoBoJo to cock it up as per nurses previously - spend political capital taking an impossibilist stance, then end up paying more anyway.)
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Having such little motorway capacity is what generates congestion as you are funnelling everyone through the same routes. Plus if the motorway is closed due to an accident like an overturned lorry shutting down the M6 over the weekend, then towns or cities become rat-runs instead.
If there were more capacity, there'd be more alternative routes, so you wouldn't be funnelling everyone through the same one and so there'd be less congestion, plus more slack in the system when one part of it gets shut down.
Given you love of freeways and hire and fire policies the USA is thataway...
That’s as childish as telling left-inclined voters to piss off to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
I'm very much of the viewpoint that if you prefer how things are done elsewhere the sane approach isn't to force your desires on others but to move to a place where what you desire already exists.
Which, if enacted, would cause immense migration, transport and integration problems.
Far better to accept and indeed embrace diversity. Heinz was right: Variety is the spice of life.
Links to the Parliamentary answer to the question of Triple Lock restoration.
I get the Pension next year but think its a disgrace its going up more than triple the rate being offered by HMG to railworkers nurses teachers and many others.
My suggestion of linking Pensions to Public Sector Pay backdated to 2010 would result in a 17% cut rather than a 10% rise
Hmmm.
Compared to peers, we have wages reasonably high and state pensions very low, so it is a rational move.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Having such little motorway capacity is what generates congestion as you are funnelling everyone through the same routes. Plus if the motorway is closed due to an accident like an overturned lorry shutting down the M6 over the weekend, then towns or cities become rat-runs instead.
If there were more capacity, there'd be more alternative routes, so you wouldn't be funnelling everyone through the same one and so there'd be less congestion, plus more slack in the system when one part of it gets shut down.
Given you love of freeways and hire and fire policies the USA is thataway...
That’s as childish as telling left-inclined voters to piss off to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
I'm very much of the viewpoint that if you prefer how things are done elsewhere the sane approach isn't to force your desires on others but to move to a place where what you desire already exists.
I'm very much of the viewpoint that nowhere is perfect, nor ever will be, and we should evolve by learning from the best of what works and avoiding the worst of what does not.
There are some things America does right. Flexibility in the economy, investing in roads etc
There are a great many things America does very, very badly. I am not a fan of importing American-style culture wars or racism as some others seems to desire for instance. And the less said about America's totally corrupt healthcare rort, or political corruption, the better.
You can - one rule for people likely to vote Tory, another for people unable to vote because they can't afford photo ID...
OTOH everyone should want the state pension protected from inflation because one day it will be you who is receiving it.
People forget that the constituency of people who want pensioners feather bedded extends down to those who can see retirement round the corner. The rest of us assume it’ll be devalued by the time it’s our turn.
You can - one rule for people likely to vote Tory, another for people unable to vote because they can't afford photo ID...
OTOH everyone should want the state pension protected from inflation because one day it will be you who is receiving it.
Oh I have zero problems with the 10% hike in pensions - it really should be more than that (one off) with tax changed to reflect it.
What we currently have is a system where pensioners on the basic pension automatically qualify for additional benefits based on poverty and yet many can't or won't claim those additional benefits for multiple reasons.
My point was that pensioners vote and many people who work minimum wage don't. Which means politicians try and protect pensioners and don't care about working class people.
It’s only famous amongst Armenians. A 12th century “cross-stone” - khachkar. There are thousands of these all across Armenia but this is said to be the very best of them all. And it is superb. A page from the Book of Kells in stone
This is why BigG unless he is against restoring the Triple Lock is a hypocrite
Link Pensioners increases to Public Sector pay increases backdated to 2010 then see the outcry
Why 2010, why not link it back to earnings backdated to when the link with earnings was broken ?
Because Austerity doesnt impact Tory Pensioners and the link with earnings included private sector wages which arent taxpayer funded. Frozen public Sector Pay is the best way to enlighten Pensioners that their benefit monies doesnt grow on trees
No, but then pensioners were impacted when the link with earnings was broken in the first place. Taking a bit of selective data doesn't change that. Earning ran ahead of pensions during that time, the fact is that pensions are now closing that historic gap.
Why do you assume pensioners think money grows on trees BTW ?
You can - one rule for people likely to vote Tory, another for people unable to vote because they can't afford photo ID...
OTOH everyone should want the state pension protected from inflation because one day it will be you who is receiving it.
People forget that the constituency of people who want pensioners feather bedded extends down to those who can see retirement round the corner. The rest of us assume it’ll be devalued by the time it’s our turn.
The most likely way it will be devalued is by governments giving less than inflationary top ups each autumn.
This is why BigG unless he is against restoring the Triple Lock is a hypocrite
Link Pensioners increases to Public Sector pay increases backdated to 2010 then see the outcry
Why 2010, why not link it back to earnings backdated to when the link with earnings was broken ?
Because Austerity doesnt impact Tory Pensioners and the link with earnings included private sector wages which arent taxpayer funded. Frozen public Sector Pay is the best way to enlighten Pensioners that their benefit monies doesnt grow on trees
No, but then pensioners were impacted when the link with earnings was broken in the first place. Taking a bit of selective data doesn't change that. Earning ran ahead of pensions during that time, the fact is that pensions are now closing that historic gap.
Why do you assume pensioners think money grows on trees BTW ?
Earnings ran ahead when today's pensioners were working.
Pensions are running ahead now today's pensioners are retired.
Today's pensioners fucked their elders, and fucked their grandchildren. But hey ho, lets keep giving ever more to the silver spooned generation.
This is why BigG unless he is against restoring the Triple Lock is a hypocrite
Link Pensioners increases to Public Sector pay increases backdated to 2010 then see the outcry
We received 3.1% this year and on the wider point the state pension is just £9,300 pa and for the majority of pensioners they have no other means of increasing their income as they age
However, I am very uncomfortable with an10% increase next year but for the majority of pensioners it will be an important due to the low rate of UK pensions
Hypocrite.
Vast majority of Pensioners are much better off than the working population certainly in Capital Terms
BigG "I want workers to take a 5% real terms pay cut but not people my age"
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time
Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”
Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.
It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)
He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia
There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Having such little motorway capacity is what generates congestion as you are funnelling everyone through the same routes. Plus if the motorway is closed due to an accident like an overturned lorry shutting down the M6 over the weekend, then towns or cities become rat-runs instead.
If there were more capacity, there'd be more alternative routes, so you wouldn't be funnelling everyone through the same one and so there'd be less congestion, plus more slack in the system when one part of it gets shut down.
Given you love of freeways and hire and fire policies the USA is thataway...
That’s as childish as telling left-inclined voters to piss off to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
I'm very much of the viewpoint that if you prefer how things are done elsewhere the sane approach isn't to force your desires on others but to move to a place where what you desire already exists.
I think the lorry vs rail question is answered by whether road or rail is the better answer for mitigating the Russian Grain Blockade on Ukraine.
You can - one rule for people likely to vote Tory, another for people unable to vote because they can't afford photo ID...
OTOH everyone should want the state pension protected from inflation because one day it will be you who is receiving it.
People forget that the constituency of people who want pensioners feather bedded extends down to those who can see retirement round the corner. The rest of us assume it’ll be devalued by the time it’s our turn.
The most likely way it will be devalued is by governments giving less than inflationary top ups each autumn.
Yes, but that’s inevitable. As is my pension age being set at well into the 70s. Although that being said, presumably in about 30 years our demographics will flip and there will be fewer pensioners in the population by percentage, which might change the equation.
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time
Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”
Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.
It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)
He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia
There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back
Not for me it ain't. Possibly the most extreme Europhile on PB and for me it's dead, gone mate, deaceased, to be no more.
Let's forget it. They wouldn't have us back anyway, and who should blame them?
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time
Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”
Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.
It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)
He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia
There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back
Strategically to get elected it is vital for him.
He cannot become PM without winning back the redwall and he will not win back the redwall without ruling out free movement/EEA.
The LDs might make some extra gains in Remain seats if they become the only main UK wide party backing EEA but the LDs would back Starmer over Johnson as PM anyway
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time
Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”
Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.
It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)
He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia
There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back
I think you're vastly overestimating the degree to which Remainers want to hand to Boris on a plate the opportunity to reignite the Brexit wars.
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time
Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”
Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.
It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)
He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia
There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back
It would be fascinating to see a future rump remainer Gvt ask to join the EEA or even the EU and get vetoed by the likes of France. The tears could drown us all.
This is why BigG unless he is against restoring the Triple Lock is a hypocrite
Link Pensioners increases to Public Sector pay increases backdated to 2010 then see the outcry
Why 2010, why not link it back to earnings backdated to when the link with earnings was broken ?
Because Austerity doesnt impact Tory Pensioners and the link with earnings included private sector wages which arent taxpayer funded. Frozen public Sector Pay is the best way to enlighten Pensioners that their benefit monies doesnt grow on trees
No, but then pensioners were impacted when the link with earnings was broken in the first place. Taking a bit of selective data doesn't change that. Earning ran ahead of pensions during that time, the fact is that pensions are now closing that historic gap.
Why do you assume pensioners think money grows on trees BTW ?
Earnings ran ahead when today's pensioners were working.
Pensions are running ahead now today's pensioners are retired.
Today's pensioners fucked their elders, and fucked their grandchildren. But hey ho, lets keep giving ever more to the silver spooned generation.
And all those millions of houses they bought for a few thousand pounds that are now worth millions as well.
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time
Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”
Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.
It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)
He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia
There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back
Not for me it ain't. Possibly the most extreme Europhile on PB and for me it's dead, gone mate, deaceased, to be no more.
Let's forget it. They wouldn't have us back anyway, and who should blame them?
I don’t mean rejoin. I mean the single market and Free Movement. Millions of people - and quite a few businesses - would be delighted with this
It’s the loss of free movement that is the greatest price of Brexit. The ability to work, study etc
I’m a Leaver and I miss it. So Remainers presumably and surely even more so
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time
Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”
Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.
It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)
He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia
There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back
Not for me it ain't. Possibly the most extreme Europhile on PB and for me it's dead, gone mate, deaceased, to be no more.
Let's forget it. They wouldn't have us back anyway, and who should blame them?
To return is to join the euro. This would be an economic disaster. We should have nothing to do with it.
As a Remainer I would vote no to rejoining if that was the consequence.
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
A load of bollocks in what sense? I'm no fan of Grant Shapps / Michael Green but at least he has had the cojones to abolish the moronic franchising system – an international laughing stock – after decades of fiasco and farce.
They announced a series of exciting rail projects which were physically impossible (with the journey times quoted) and operationally impossible thanks to the huge gaps in the previously announced plans actually reducing instead of increasing capacity.
Not a single bit of work has been carried out by NR or outside consultants to flesh out the announced plans as actual proposals. Because the announcement was laughable bollocks. Same as when Chris Grayling was in the chair and used to propose that a "digital railway" was the non-building solution to the Castlefield Corridor bottleneck.
As for franchises, lets await what happens. Remember that the "nationalised" operators are operated by the private sector by direct edict from the DfT. Which is the same as when they were "privatised". Only when the entire framework is proposed for abolition can we consider awarding any credit. Which means Great British Railways being enacted. Spoiler alert - no work is being carried on on that either.
The abolition of franchising is not sufficient to sort out the railway, but it's a necessary first step. Regardless of the myriad holes in Shapps' strategy, at least he has had the cojones to rid of us of the Virgins, the Midland Mainlines, the Southerns and all the rest of the chiselling franchisees who embarrass the nation.
Just having one backside to kick – Great British Railways – will stop the pathetic blame game where everyone points the finger at each other for their daily cockups. And the absurd spectacle of regular renationalisations when it emerges that various franchisees can't cut it.
But he *hasn't* done that. All of the franchises still exist. They are all still operating. The difference is that (as an example) instead of Arriva - a private company - running the Northern Trains franchise, it is now run by OLR Rail - a consortium of private companies.
What GBR is proposed to do is to abolish the entire franchising system. But hasn't yet done so. And no progress is being made along the journey where that will actually happen. Instead we have the absolute worst set-up of all. All of the costs of the franchised* railway system with all of the anti-benefits of clueless bean counters in the DfT dictating every last detail and usually doing the opposite of what was needed.
*franchised, not privatised. Passenger railway operations were never privatised.
This is why BigG unless he is against restoring the Triple Lock is a hypocrite
Link Pensioners increases to Public Sector pay increases backdated to 2010 then see the outcry
Why 2010, why not link it back to earnings backdated to when the link with earnings was broken ?
Because Austerity doesnt impact Tory Pensioners and the link with earnings included private sector wages which arent taxpayer funded. Frozen public Sector Pay is the best way to enlighten Pensioners that their benefit monies doesnt grow on trees
No, but then pensioners were impacted when the link with earnings was broken in the first place. Taking a bit of selective data doesn't change that. Earning ran ahead of pensions during that time, the fact is that pensions are now closing that historic gap.
Why do you assume pensioners think money grows on trees BTW ?
Earnings ran ahead when today's pensioners were working.
Pensions are running ahead now today's pensioners are retired.
Today's pensioners fucked their elders, and fucked their grandchildren. But hey ho, lets keep giving ever more to the silver spooned generation.
Given the government is going to tear up restrictions on City bonuses I doubt most voters will be too bothered about a generous rise in the state pension
Starmer in hiding and some of his mps are trying to hide their RMT connections while other PPS stand in open defiance of the leadership
Yesterday afternoon Labour York MP Rachael Maskell stood up to ask a point of order, after Grant Shapps had spent an hour having fun pointing out all the Labour MPs who stood up to ask questions in defence of the strikes, without declaring their interests after pocketing thousands from the RMT Union. Following the question session Maskell stood up to complain to the deputy speaker that this was very unfair:
“You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many members of the Labour party have a relationship with the trade unions that we are incredibly proud of, including with the RMT. The advice that I received from the Standards Commissioner ahead of that debate, and therefore ahead of today, stated under the requirements for declaration:
“Members are required, subject to the paragraphs below, to declare any financial interests which satisfy the test of relevance, including:
a) past financial interests (normally limited to those active within the last twelve months)”.
It is my recollection that the general election was two and a half years ago, so can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether a declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests should keep being raised two and a half years after it has been made?”
To paraphrase Eleanor Laing’s no-nonsense response, she told MPs to present the whole truth when representing their union paymasters, not just try and get away without a declaration because of a small technicality in the members’ rule book.
If only Sebastian Fox and the Tory shills weren't lying when they said the RMT and Labour are in cahoots! Are the RMT affiliated to the party? No! Is Grant Shapps the one person that could have stopped the strike? Yes!
Have you seen the various clips of that idiot minister on TV last night? Embarrassing - for people like your good self who still parrots the Tory lie as a kind of muscle memory.
The RMT are funding some labour mps and what should embarrass labour is they are all over the place even trying to hide their sponsorship
Frankly I agree with Shapp's that HMG sets the parameters but it is upto the unions and employers to come to agreement on pay and modernisation including redundancies that are inevitable
Given that all rail companies have been nationalised and can't even fart let alone spend a single £ without Shapp's prior approval - Mr Shapp is playing games here.
I'm reminded of that day earlier on this year when Shapps announced his big integrated rail plan and Big G lapped it all up whereas those of us who use the railways a lot realised it was a load of bollocks.
A load of bollocks in what sense? I'm no fan of Grant Shapps / Michael Green but at least he has had the cojones to abolish the moronic franchising system – an international laughing stock – after decades of fiasco and farce.
They announced a series of exciting rail projects which were physically impossible (with the journey times quoted) and operationally impossible thanks to the huge gaps in the previously announced plans actually reducing instead of increasing capacity.
Not a single bit of work has been carried out by NR or outside consultants to flesh out the announced plans as actual proposals. Because the announcement was laughable bollocks. Same as when Chris Grayling was in the chair and used to propose that a "digital railway" was the non-building solution to the Castlefield Corridor bottleneck.
As for franchises, lets await what happens. Remember that the "nationalised" operators are operated by the private sector by direct edict from the DfT. Which is the same as when they were "privatised". Only when the entire framework is proposed for abolition can we consider awarding any credit. Which means Great British Railways being enacted. Spoiler alert - no work is being carried on on that either.
The abolition of franchising is not sufficient to sort out the railway, but it's a necessary first step. Regardless of the myriad holes in Shapps' strategy, at least he has had the cojones to rid of us of the Virgins, the Midland Mainlines, the Southerns and all the rest of the chiselling franchisees who embarrass the nation.
Just having one backside to kick – Great British Railways – will stop the pathetic blame game where everyone points the finger at each other for their daily cockups. And the absurd spectacle of regular renationalisations when it emerges that various franchisees can't cut it.
I'm confused.
PB Tories:
"Nicola" nationalised the Scottish railways! Baaad SNP, bunch of commies, etc. "Boris" nationalising the rUK railways! ... embarrassed silence.
Indeed – last time I counted at least four rUK franchises were nationalised...
I'll have a listen to that debate later.
Rachell Maskell sounds as if she needs to come into (say) the 2nd half of the 20th century.
I had a look for payments from the RMT to MPs, but the information is published with maximum obfuscation - downloadable PDFs every fortnight so it can't be read mechanically and there are about 15-20 docs a year to download and read and summarise.
If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.
What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦♂️
The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.
Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.
Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc
Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.
HS2 is a white elephant. Always was. Always will be.
Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
Indeed.
Fundamentally, the advantage of railways is a much lower coefficient of friction, as well as a resilient trackbed: they can carry far heavier loads for long distances for limited outlays of energy without chewing up the road service and with only a couple of members of staff.
When you add on top how regulated and signalled they are they are much safer too.
Absolutely fantastic for the days when the economy operated by needing tonnes of the same good like coal, going to the same destination, like the coal power plant.
Not so good for the modern economy. But that doesn't suit the agenda some people have to push.
Where do you think the hard core for your motorways comes from? Your Crossrail? Construction in London and the HC? Clue: there is precious little hard rock in the HC.
Have a look at the quarry materials flows. Merehead limestone, for instance.
As I said, if you want to shift large volumes of the same good along the same route, then absolutely rail can be great. There's a time and a place for rail.
But the problem is, post-coal, that its not as much, and not as often. Whereas roads, especially in the age of goods getting more complicated and smaller, are stretched well past their capacity.
Adding more rail routes is tinkering at the edges of freight capacity, because most freight doesn't want to be moved by rail. Adding more motorways would be truly transformative.
Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.
Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.
If its not the former whats the point of Labour
Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.
Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.
*Which of course he is.
Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time
Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”
Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.
It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)
He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia
There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back
Not for me it ain't. Possibly the most extreme Europhile on PB and for me it's dead, gone mate, deaceased, to be no more.
Let's forget it. They wouldn't have us back anyway, and who should blame them?
To return is to join the euro. This would be an economic disaster. We should have nothing to do with it.
As a Remainer I would vote no to rejoining if that was the consequence.
I’m not talking about rejoining the EU!
We are talking about what Starmer said. Ruling out the SM and CU
This is why BigG unless he is against restoring the Triple Lock is a hypocrite
Link Pensioners increases to Public Sector pay increases backdated to 2010 then see the outcry
Why 2010, why not link it back to earnings backdated to when the link with earnings was broken ?
Because Austerity doesnt impact Tory Pensioners and the link with earnings included private sector wages which arent taxpayer funded. Frozen public Sector Pay is the best way to enlighten Pensioners that their benefit monies doesnt grow on trees
No, but then pensioners were impacted when the link with earnings was broken in the first place. Taking a bit of selective data doesn't change that. Earning ran ahead of pensions during that time, the fact is that pensions are now closing that historic gap.
Why do you assume pensioners think money grows on trees BTW ?
Earnings ran ahead when today's pensioners were working.
Pensions are running ahead now today's pensioners are retired.
Today's pensioners fucked their elders, and fucked their grandchildren. But hey ho, lets keep giving ever more to the silver spooned generation.
Given the government is going to tear up restrictions on City bonuses I doubt most voters will be too bothered about a generous rise in the state pension
Smart move. Get all the high earners based in the London office, outside the EU where it still applies, and suck up all the tax, and much of the business as they will act as a centre of gravity.
Comments
For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.
Not a single bit of work has been carried out by NR or outside consultants to flesh out the announced plans as actual proposals. Because the announcement was laughable bollocks. Same as when Chris Grayling was in the chair and used to propose that a "digital railway" was the non-building solution to the Castlefield Corridor bottleneck.
As for franchises, lets await what happens. Remember that the "nationalised" operators are operated by the private sector by direct edict from the DfT. Which is the same as when they were "privatised". Only when the entire framework is proposed for abolition can we consider awarding any credit. Which means Great British Railways being enacted. Spoiler alert - no work is being carried on on that either.
100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.
100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.
1 train = 2 drivers.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1538771495522078721?s=20&t=JsNNZFf22vjq8PgHbCpHew
Rail is a religion, not a science.
Yet bugger all new motorway network has been built since the 1970s. We should be looking to double or triple our motorway capacity to add new networks, new capacity, relieve traffic and mean people and goods don't need to take detours to or through cities they don't even intend to go to as that's the only route available.
That would do far more "levelling up" than any amount of rail investment ever could, let alone £100bn on one route alone.
[Folds arms, stamps foot]
Were all 100 lorries driving to the same distribution point?
https://twitter.com/JosephineCumbo/status/1539165889785999360
1) On a line that runs at multiple speeds you can have either more trains (all running at the same speed) or some faster trains at the cost of longer gaps between trains (and so fewer services).
The part of the IRP that Network Rail deny all knowledge about promised both more local services and faster trains. That just isn't possible.
2) On the ECML the claim was that 10 minutes could be cut off the journey time. That simply isn't possible because there isn't any parts of the route between York and London where additional time savings can be made. Network rail surveyed the route back in 2018 and I think for a total cost of £10bn it was possible to knock 3 minutes off journey times.
https://www.modernrailways.com/article/ecml-upgrade-dft-jumps-shark has an overview if anyone cares to read more.
Fundamentally, the advantage of railways is a much lower coefficient of friction, as well as a resilient trackbed: they can carry far heavier loads for long distances for limited outlays of energy without chewing up the road service and with only a couple of members of staff.
When you add on top how regulated and signalled they are they are much safer too.
If there were more capacity, there'd be more alternative routes, so you wouldn't be funnelling everyone through the same one and so there'd be less congestion, plus more slack in the system when one part of it gets shut down.
"So what actually happened in the second round of the French parliamentary elections when Macron’s candidates were eliminated, and the choice was between the left — a coalition of the centre-left and left headed by Jean-Luc Mélenchon? *72%* of Macron’s voters simply abstained, another 12% voted for the far-right, and a mere 16% voted for the left".
"These ‘centrist’ voters had a straightforward choice: do you want to stop fascism or not? But their antipathy to the left was so overwhelming that they chose, largely, to sit on their hands".
That they haven't even been suggested, let alone implemented, means the PM's either a full-blown idiot, or his very green wife has veto over policy. Or both, of course. He could be brainles *and* spineless.
Scores of post office operators wrongly accused of embezzlement by the Post Office due to faulty accounting software, may be disqualified from a dedicated compensation scheme.
At least 170 branch managers have been told that they may not be repaid money wrongly deducted from their wages in what has been described as “the biggest miscarriage of justice in UK history” because they were unaware of the scheme, which was launched for just three months during the 2020 lockdown.
More than 700 branch managers were convicted of fraud between 2000 and 2014 after Horizon, a new computer system installed by the Post Office, showed apparent shortfalls in their accounts. Hundreds more were ordered to pay sums of up to five figures after being accused of stealing Post Office funds.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jun/21/post-office-it-scandal-victims-may-be-disqualified-from-compensation-scheme
Because in the past multiple trains going from A to B was economically viable. Train from coal mine, to coal power plant, could carry tremendous amounts of coal from the same source, to the same destination.
The death of coal, has been the death of much of the freight demand, so people keep magicking up other reasons to justify it instead, rather than acknowledging what really works and people really want, which is lorries because they are far more versatile when huge volumes of the same good, going from the same source, to the same destination, is not how the modern economy works.
Link Pensioners increases to Public Sector pay increases backdated to 2010 then see the outcry
Not so good for the modern economy. But that doesn't suit the agenda some people have to push.
Just having one backside to kick – Great British Railways – will stop the pathetic blame game where everyone points the finger at each other for their daily cockups. And the absurd spectacle of regular renationalisations when it emerges that various franchisees can't cut it.
That's why people use them. That's why despite the lack of investment in road infrastructure, and the fuel escalator going in, demand for them has increased as a share of goods rather than fell.
If you want a trainload of goods going from A to B, then its a different story. Especially if you have a train station at A and B. But post-coal, that's not usually the case anymore.
Have a look at the quarry materials flows. Merehead limestone, for instance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendip_Rail .
DfT have just extended Chiltern's franchise for another 6 years so I love to know where you've got the idea that franchises are going to be binned.... https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2022/06/15/chiltern-railways-awarded-six-year-national-rtail-contract
PB Tories:
"Nicola" nationalised the Scottish railways! Baaad SNP, bunch of commies, etc.
"Boris" nationalising the rUK railways! ... embarrassed silence.
Changing them now would be an admission that someone screwed up...
However, I am very uncomfortable with an10% increase next year but for the majority of pensioners it will be an important due to the low rate of UK pensions
NI, as so often, is a bit… err… [insert patronising noun of choice].
You keep moaning about capacity, when the share of rail when it comes to freight has been falling not rising.
It is the motorway network that is stretched to capacity. It is the motorway network that is running at triple the capacity it was designed for in most places.
Triple the motorway network bringing the current routes back down to the demand they were built for, and having new alternative routes available, and lets see how much economic growth and potential that unleashes. While adding the capacity of millions of new vehicles per day, not hundreds or thousands of them.
The Lib Dems will have an EEA or similar policy as it appeals to both their core and target voters.
Though if I was to say any was less bad, I'd say Nicola. Given the rural, low density nature of Scotland, it might make sense to subsidise transport there, unlike in England.
Links to the Parliamentary answer to the question of Triple Lock restoration.
I get the Pension next year but think its a disgrace its going up more than triple the rate being offered by HMG to railworkers nurses teachers and many others.
My suggestion of linking Pensions to Public Sector Pay backdated to 2010 would result in a 17% cut rather than a 10% rise
https://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2022/05/how-great-british-railways-can-learn-from-the-old-br/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-59531741
The real solution to transport (maritime, aviation, rail and road) problems is a drastic reduction in demand for moving goods and people, especially over long distances. The planet is not (yet) ready to listen.
And don’t get me on to space transport.
Compared to peers, we have wages reasonably high and state pensions very low, so it is a rational move.
Interesting that no one is having a pop at benefits going up with inflation, which are perhaps relatively higher than pensions.
(NO I'm not defending a particular proposal. I'd say that the 5% agreed for train drivers in Scotland is perhaps a reasonable yardstick.
I expect OhNoBoJo to cock it up as per nurses previously - spend political capital taking an impossibilist stance, then end up paying more anyway.)
Far better to accept and indeed embrace diversity. Heinz was right: Variety is the spice of life.
Pensions rise at the rate of inflation=not inflationary.
There are some things America does right. Flexibility in the economy, investing in roads etc
There are a great many things America does very, very badly. I am not a fan of importing American-style culture wars or racism as some others seems to desire for instance. And the less said about America's totally corrupt healthcare rort, or political corruption, the better.
What we currently have is a system where pensioners on the basic pension automatically qualify for additional benefits based on poverty and yet many can't or won't claim those additional benefits for multiple reasons.
My point was that pensioners vote and many people who work minimum wage don't. Which means politicians try and protect pensioners and don't care about working class people.
It’s only famous amongst Armenians. A 12th century “cross-stone” - khachkar. There are thousands of these all across Armenia but this is said to be the very best of them all. And it is superb. A page from the Book of Kells in stone
Why do you assume pensioners think money grows on trees BTW ?
Pensions are running ahead now today's pensioners are retired.
Today's pensioners fucked their elders, and fucked their grandchildren. But hey ho, lets keep giving ever more to the silver spooned generation.
Vast majority of Pensioners are much better off than the working population certainly in Capital Terms
BigG "I want workers to take a 5% real terms pay cut but not people my age"
He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia
There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back
Let's forget it. They wouldn't have us back anyway, and who should blame them?
He cannot become PM without winning back the redwall and he will not win back the redwall without ruling out free movement/EEA.
The LDs might make some extra gains in Remain seats if they become the only main UK wide party backing EEA but the LDs would back Starmer over Johnson as PM anyway
Is there no end to their mendacity.
All my left leaning metro friends are incensed at the 'greedy unions'.
It’s the loss of free movement that is the greatest price of Brexit. The ability to work, study etc
I’m a Leaver and I miss it. So Remainers presumably and surely even more so
As a Remainer I would vote no to rejoining if that was the consequence.
What GBR is proposed to do is to abolish the entire franchising system. But hasn't yet done so. And no progress is being made along the journey where that will actually happen. Instead we have the absolute worst set-up of all. All of the costs of the franchised* railway system with all of the anti-benefits of clueless bean counters in the DfT dictating every last detail and usually doing the opposite of what was needed.
*franchised, not privatised. Passenger railway operations were never privatised.
https://inews.co.uk/news/no-10-planning-tear-up-restrictions-city-bosses-pay-cost-of-living-crisis-1696695
Rachell Maskell sounds as if she needs to come into (say) the 2nd half of the 20th century.
I had a look for payments from the RMT to MPs, but the information is published with maximum obfuscation - downloadable PDFs every fortnight so it can't be read mechanically and there are about 15-20 docs a year to download and read and summarise.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/contents2122.htm
But the problem is, post-coal, that its not as much, and not as often. Whereas roads, especially in the age of goods getting more complicated and smaller, are stretched well past their capacity.
Adding more rail routes is tinkering at the edges of freight capacity, because most freight doesn't want to be moved by rail. Adding more motorways would be truly transformative.
We are talking about what Starmer said. Ruling out the SM and CU