I only just watched the second half of the itv debate. My god Rishi is a smarmy operator. Simply awful. His routine is going to bomb with the electorate by 2024.
I was pretty struck by the round where they all got to ask questions of each other. TT went for an underarm throw to Penny Mordaunt. Intriguing. A shame Kemi is on her high horse so much about Penny’s equality legislation. Because she’d do far better as Mordaunt’s chancellor than Rishi’s. If the two of them rallied around Mordaunt that campaign would be unstoppable.
As it is, I guess it’s Sunak vs Truss. They’ll both be a cluster but I’d choose Truss over Sunak every time based on his performances.
We need a massive state investment into the railways to ensure they are safe as the climate emergency gets worse.
And it would put a lot of people to work and could be a Brexit benefit with state aid.
F**k that, we already have massive state subsidies of the railways.
We should instead be looking to eliminate state subsidies and let people who choose to use railways pay their own way.
If railways are so terribly uneconomic and inefficient that their users can't pay their own way, then stop investing in them.
Is that you, Dr Beeching?
Beeching didn't do it properly. Pruning state owned and operated railways while keeping them subsidised by the taxpayer achieves little. It kept the railways being ran for state-related interest groups, rather than for the consumers.
Get them out of state involvement altogether, like the Japanese main rail routes are done. More Japanese people commute by rail as a proportion than possibly any other country in the world and they do so primarily (eg apart from the north island, which is less populated than Scotland) without subsidies.
I take your point, but not sure people are quite ready to pay per mile to drive, pay per 999 call when they get stabbed etc etc.
People already pay when they drive, we have fuel duty. Oh and we have road tax, whatever its called today.
999 is an actual social good, unlike transportation.
You wanted to cut public subsidy. Fuel duty has nothing to do with the roads budget - it goes into the general pot. The closest we have is VED which raises £7bn a year vs £12bn spent on roads. So it is subsidised and we would need to have a pay per use system to eliminate that.
You don't think transportation is a societal good? How do you think food appears in your supermarket?
So to be surveyed, you must volunteer yourself with your party ID. Beyond that, just totaling responses (am presuming they check for duplicates)?
Literary Digest poll had somewhat more sophisticated methodology; in 1936 they sent out 10m mailings and got back over 2 million responses. And also had a great track record forecasting US presidential results. . . until 1936 that is.
I dont know why they are concerned about infighting. You're supposed to infight at such times. It still exists even if theres no debate.
I suspect ITV spoiled it for everyone. Clearly they thought "we can't just re-run the C4 debate", so they tried to find a different, more hostile angle to it - directly encouraging each of the candidates to attack others. Then you have idiots like Peston going "oh my god they are attacking each other" and writing articles about how the Conservatives are infighting.
Made for funny TV but not surprised that Sunak and Truss have got cold feet now after that.
Anyway I always though 3 of these debates within a few days of each other was bordering on overkill. The position now is the same position everyone was saying when Boris was having his bunker Downfall moment - we don't run a presidential system here.
I dont know why they are concerned about infighting. You're supposed to infight at such times. It still exists even if theres no debate.
Yeah but they are verging on screaming 'c***' in each others faces. Ok, not litreally, but they are effectively trepanning themselves to try and let out the demons
But likes and clicks are what the media are looking for. The negative effect on democracy itself is merely a sideshow.
What negative effect? Party members revealing they have thoughts of their own and are not unthinking automatons parroting lines?
I only just watched the second half of the itv debate. My god Rishi is a smarmy operator. Simply awful. His routine is going to bomb with the electorate by 2024.
I was pretty struck by the round where they all got to ask questions of each other. TT went for an underarm throw to Penny Mordaunt. Intriguing. A shame Kemi is on her high horse so much about Penny’s equality legislation. Because she’d do far better as Mordaunt’s chancellor than Rishi’s. If the two of them rallied around Mordaunt that campaign would be unstoppable.
As it is, I guess it’s Sunak vs Truss. They’ll both be a cluster but I’d choose Truss over Sunak every time based on his performances.
Truss is like the beta-version of the new model AI politician.
I dont know why they are concerned about infighting. You're supposed to infight at such times. It still exists even if theres no debate.
I suspect ITV spoiled it for everyone. Clearly they thought "we can't just re-run the C4 debate", so they tried to find a different, more hostile angle to it - directly encouraging each of the candidates to attack others. Then you have idiots like Peston going "oh my god they are attacking each other" and writing articles about how the Conservatives are infighting.
Made for funny TV but not surprised that Sunak and Truss have got cold feet now after that.
Anyway I always though 3 of these debates within a few days of each other was bordering on overkill. The position now is the same position everyone was saying when Boris was having his bunker Downfall moment - we don't run a presidential system here.
Sunak statement specifically referred to the Channel 4 debate as being problematic.
We need a massive state investment into the railways to ensure they are safe as the climate emergency gets worse.
And it would put a lot of people to work and could be a Brexit benefit with state aid.
F**k that, we already have massive state subsidies of the railways.
We should instead be looking to eliminate state subsidies and let people who choose to use railways pay their own way.
If railways are so terribly uneconomic and inefficient that their users can't pay their own way, then stop investing in them.
Is that you, Dr Beeching?
Beeching didn't do it properly. Pruning state owned and operated railways while keeping them subsidised by the taxpayer achieves little. It kept the railways being ran for state-related interest groups, rather than for the consumers.
Get them out of state involvement altogether, like the Japanese main rail routes are done. More Japanese people commute by rail as a proportion than possibly any other country in the world and they do so primarily (eg apart from the north island, which is less populated than Scotland) without subsidies.
If we got rid of subsidising, we'd have no lines left. None of them are profitable.
And Japanese railways were built and paid for by the taxpayer.
We need a massive state investment into the railways to ensure they are safe as the climate emergency gets worse.
And it would put a lot of people to work and could be a Brexit benefit with state aid.
F**k that, we already have massive state subsidies of the railways.
We should instead be looking to eliminate state subsidies and let people who choose to use railways pay their own way.
If railways are so terribly uneconomic and inefficient that their users can't pay their own way, then stop investing in them.
Is that you, Dr Beeching?
Beeching didn't do it properly. Pruning state owned and operated railways while keeping them subsidised by the taxpayer achieves little. It kept the railways being ran for state-related interest groups, rather than for the consumers.
Get them out of state involvement altogether, like the Japanese main rail routes are done. More Japanese people commute by rail as a proportion than possibly any other country in the world and they do so primarily (eg apart from the north island, which is less populated than Scotland) without subsidies.
I take your point, but not sure people are quite ready to pay per mile to drive, pay per 999 call when they get stabbed etc etc.
People already pay when they drive, we have fuel duty. Oh and we have road tax, whatever its called today.
999 is an actual social good, unlike transportation.
You wanted to cut public subsidy. Fuel duty has nothing to do with the roads budget - it goes into the general pot. The closest we have is VED which raises £7bn a year vs £12bn spent on roads. So it is subsidised and we would need to have a pay per use system to eliminate that.
You don't think transportation is a societal good? How do you think food appears in your supermarket?
You're right fuel duty doesn't go into the roads budget, if it did the roads budget would be massively more than it is. Instead drivers are the golden goose getting fleeced. Abolish all road-related taxes and have privatised roads and the cost would go down, not up, for drivers - it is the state being involved in the roads that makes it so expensive.
How does food appear in the supermarket? The companies involved pay privately for the vehicles and their fuel to get the food to the supermarket.
I dont know why they are concerned about infighting. You're supposed to infight at such times. It still exists even if theres no debate.
I suspect ITV spoiled it for everyone. Clearly they thought "we can't just re-run the C4 debate", so they tried to find a different, more hostile angle to it - directly encouraging each of the candidates to attack others. Then you have idiots like Peston going "oh my god they are attacking each other" and writing articles about how the Conservatives are infighting.
Made for funny TV but not surprised that Sunak and Truss have got cold feet now after that.
Anyway I always though 3 of these debates within a few days of each other was bordering on overkill. The position now is the same position everyone was saying when Boris was having his bunker Downfall moment - we don't run a presidential system here.
Sunak statement specifically referred to the Channel 4 debate as being problematic.
Truss and Sunak have concluded they have the votes and hence don't need to debate anymore.
Yes that was my take, clearly both camps feeling confident this morning. Sunak surely DOES have the votes, I wouldn't put my house on Truss having them - but could be some Mordaunt -> Sunak slippage that might help her.
I think so, though I think it will still be close for her. It shows confidence though.
Shades of Clinton and the Rust Belt in 2016, there...
I dont know why they are concerned about infighting. You're supposed to infight at such times. It still exists even if theres no debate.
I suspect ITV spoiled it for everyone. Clearly they thought "we can't just re-run the C4 debate", so they tried to find a different, more hostile angle to it - directly encouraging each of the candidates to attack others. Then you have idiots like Peston going "oh my god they are attacking each other" and writing articles about how the Conservatives are infighting.
Made for funny TV but not surprised that Sunak and Truss have got cold feet now after that.
Anyway I always though 3 of these debates within a few days of each other was bordering on overkill. The position now is the same position everyone was saying when Boris was having his bunker Downfall moment - we don't run a presidential system here.
3 so close was unnecessary, especially with hustings as well, but the whinging is undignified.
I disagree on the last point though - we dont get a vote, but they are running publicly to be essentially president of the Tories, and it's as convenient a way for Tory members to view them as any other.
We need a massive state investment into the railways to ensure they are safe as the climate emergency gets worse.
And it would put a lot of people to work and could be a Brexit benefit with state aid.
We could - but we won't. Even the semi-fictional GBR won't do so assuming it actually gets created with the brief that soon to be ex-Transport Secretary Sebastian Fox gave it.
Too much of the network is done on the cheap. And yet costs £vast because of the nobcheese privatisation structure that has been maintained despite almost all of it being run by the DFT's preferred private contractors.
As an example. The East Coast Mainline was wired on the cheap to save the Treasury money in the late 80s. Has cost way more in disruption and endless repairs than it would have cost Nigel Lawson to do it properly. And that's just the wires - a lack of power to go into the wires is why we have absurdities like franchises issued for what is now LNER to operate trains that the infrastructure is incapable of accommodating.
The solution remains to copy the successful European models. State Owned, Commercially Run companies who borrow at government rates to build and run services run for public need.
It is a testament to how good our engineering ability was/is, that the InterCity 125 has lasted as long as it has.
I was looking at how quickly and early we got certain electrifications done, genuinely impressive.
We should be racing ahead in railways and yet we are stuck. We need a transport revolution.
That's because the debate is around ownership.
Clearly they would be better either in state hands or entirely privatised.
Why on Earth are we giving money away to FirstGroup to run things which the Government now decides? Totally nonsensical.
It isn't. We're 3 decades into the privatised structure. All of the railway professionals are working for the private sector. Remember that even the fully "nationalised" ones are run by yet another private sector operator. When franchises get binned for management contracts the likes of First Group get paid a fee to supply the staff and the organisation to do whatever the DfT morons tell them to do.
We could create a StateCo operator, but at the moment they would be run by the same DfT morons who fuck up literally every decision they make wrt railway operations. At least the staff at First actually know what they are doing.
As for the debate around ownership, remember the simple rule - passenger rail operations were never privatised. A private sector company being awarded 7 years operating concessions which hand back to the state owner on expiry is not privatisation.
I'd argue franchises and concessions are very different things: and whilst most passenger services became franchises on privatisation, some (e.g. Merseyrail) became concessions. I was calling for looking at making them all concessions on here many years ago.
If this sort of franchise on the railways is not privatisation, does the same go for franchises in the NHS?
I only just watched the second half of the itv debate. My god Rishi is a smarmy operator. Simply awful. His routine is going to bomb with the electorate by 2024.
I was pretty struck by the round where they all got to ask questions of each other. TT went for an underarm throw to Penny Mordaunt. Intriguing. A shame Kemi is on her high horse so much about Penny’s equality legislation. Because she’d do far better as Mordaunt’s chancellor than Rishi’s. If the two of them rallied around Mordaunt that campaign would be unstoppable.
As it is, I guess it’s Sunak vs Truss. They’ll both be a cluster but I’d choose Truss over Sunak every time based on his performances.
Truss is like the beta-version of the new model AI politician.
The inflation comments expose that she doesn’t have a clue about the detail herself. But at least her advisors haven’t talked her into a counter cyclical fiscal contraction as per Sunak. Hopefully one of the others can take them both down.
We need a massive state investment into the railways to ensure they are safe as the climate emergency gets worse.
And it would put a lot of people to work and could be a Brexit benefit with state aid.
F**k that, we already have massive state subsidies of the railways.
We should instead be looking to eliminate state subsidies and let people who choose to use railways pay their own way.
If railways are so terribly uneconomic and inefficient that their users can't pay their own way, then stop investing in them.
Is that you, Dr Beeching?
Beeching didn't do it properly. Pruning state owned and operated railways while keeping them subsidised by the taxpayer achieves little. It kept the railways being ran for state-related interest groups, rather than for the consumers.
Get them out of state involvement altogether, like the Japanese main rail routes are done. More Japanese people commute by rail as a proportion than possibly any other country in the world and they do so primarily (eg apart from the north island, which is less populated than Scotland) without subsidies.
If we got rid of subsidising, we'd have no lines left. None of them are profitable.
And Japanese railways were built and paid for by the taxpayer.
They're not profitable as they're not ran for the consumers, they're ran for lobbyists. Just as the state always does.
Japanese railways are ran for, and developed for, their consumers. That's why so many more people use them than in this country - and development is better done around stations too as the companies concerned want to ensure that their stations are popular.
Their system works, our system doesn't. If our system is so great, why do you whinge about it so often?
We need a massive state investment into the railways to ensure they are safe as the climate emergency gets worse.
And it would put a lot of people to work and could be a Brexit benefit with state aid.
F**k that, we already have massive state subsidies of the railways.
We should instead be looking to eliminate state subsidies and let people who choose to use railways pay their own way.
If railways are so terribly uneconomic and inefficient that their users can't pay their own way, then stop investing in them.
Is that you, Dr Beeching?
Beeching didn't do it properly. Pruning state owned and operated railways while keeping them subsidised by the taxpayer achieves little. It kept the railways being ran for state-related interest groups, rather than for the consumers.
Get them out of state involvement altogether, like the Japanese main rail routes are done. More Japanese people commute by rail as a proportion than possibly any other country in the world and they do so primarily (eg apart from the north island, which is less populated than Scotland) without subsidies.
If we got rid of subsidising, we'd have no lines left. None of them are profitable.
And Japanese railways were built and paid for by the taxpayer.
They're not profitable as they're not ran for the consumers, they're ran for lobbyists. Just as the state always does.
Japanese railways are ran for, and developed for, their consumers. That's why so many more people use them than in this country - and development is better done around stations too as the companies concerned want to ensure that their stations are popular.
Their system works, our system doesn't. If our system is so great, why do you whinge about it so often?
No the Japanese system works because the taxpayer funded the routes and they invested in them for a one hundred year period with no expectation of a profit.
The non-profitable routes in Japan are still owned by the taxpayer, oddly you don't seem to want to close those down?
We need a massive state investment into the railways to ensure they are safe as the climate emergency gets worse.
And it would put a lot of people to work and could be a Brexit benefit with state aid.
F**k that, we already have massive state subsidies of the railways.
We should instead be looking to eliminate state subsidies and let people who choose to use railways pay their own way.
If railways are so terribly uneconomic and inefficient that their users can't pay their own way, then stop investing in them.
You do realise that your initials give the game away? Secretly, you're a fan of a nationalised and heavily subsidised rail service, and you know that your arguments against this will strengthen the case for the return of BR.
Bollocks did the pandemic "need" such spending, the disastrous choice to go for lockdown, and the even worse decision to keep lockdown going in 2021 on the other hand did.
Even if that comparison were valid and not cherry-picked, it wasn't Sunak who decided on the lockdown policy, so it is irrelevant to the questions about the effect on the public finances, still less to the point about whether he has a good answer to the criticism.
We need a massive state investment into the railways to ensure they are safe as the climate emergency gets worse.
And it would put a lot of people to work and could be a Brexit benefit with state aid.
F**k that, we already have massive state subsidies of the railways.
We should instead be looking to eliminate state subsidies and let people who choose to use railways pay their own way.
If railways are so terribly uneconomic and inefficient that their users can't pay their own way, then stop investing in them.
Is that you, Dr Beeching?
Beeching didn't do it properly. Pruning state owned and operated railways while keeping them subsidised by the taxpayer achieves little. It kept the railways being ran for state-related interest groups, rather than for the consumers.
Get them out of state involvement altogether, like the Japanese main rail routes are done. More Japanese people commute by rail as a proportion than possibly any other country in the world and they do so primarily (eg apart from the north island, which is less populated than Scotland) without subsidies.
If we got rid of subsidising, we'd have no lines left. None of them are profitable.
And Japanese railways were built and paid for by the taxpayer.
They're not profitable as they're not ran for the consumers, they're ran for lobbyists. Just as the state always does.
Japanese railways are ran for, and developed for, their consumers. That's why so many more people use them than in this country - and development is better done around stations too as the companies concerned want to ensure that their stations are popular.
Their system works, our system doesn't. If our system is so great, why do you whinge about it so often?
No the Japanese system works because the taxpayer funded the routes and they invested in them for a one hundred year period with no expectation of a profit.
The non-profitable routes in Japan are still owned by the taxpayer, oddly you don't seem to want to close those down?
The routes the Japanese taxpayer pays for are eg their north island routes, which is even less habitable and less populated than Scotland.
Policies in Scotland/their north island, should be different to policies in England/their south island.
I dont know why they are concerned about infighting. You're supposed to infight at such times. It still exists even if theres no debate.
Yeah but they are verging on screaming 'c***' in each others faces. Ok, not litreally, but they are effectively trepanning themselves to try and let out the demons
One TV debate was one too many.
Why can't one candidate have said "the party has five excellent options from which to choose" and conduct themselves with unremitting politeness.
I suspect that such a candidate would reap benefit from such a stance.
The issue with our railway is a symptom of privatisation.
Franchises/contracts are too short so the companies don't have an incentive to invest.
The Government has no long-term direction for the railways so they do short-term fixes.
If we had a 100 year rail plan we'd do a lot better - and we did before the Government started hacking the railways to pieces and cutting the funding.
Publicly own it, cut out the third party companies that offer nothing, propose a proper 100 year plan with high-speed rail, change the planning laws and get the trains and track built and owned here.
Bollocks did the pandemic "need" such spending, the disastrous choice to go for lockdown, and the even worse decision to keep lockdown going in 2021 on the other hand did.
Even if that comparison were valid and not cherry-picked, it wasn't Sunak who decided on the lockdown policy, so it is irrelevant to the questions about the effect on the public finances.
He took part in the Cabinet collective responsibility. He imposed the lockdown policy, he could have resigned if he opposed it.
The pandemic didn't cause the deficit, lockdown did. Lockdown was a catastrophic mistake, I very much regret supporting it.
We need a massive state investment into the railways to ensure they are safe as the climate emergency gets worse.
And it would put a lot of people to work and could be a Brexit benefit with state aid.
F**k that, we already have massive state subsidies of the railways.
We should instead be looking to eliminate state subsidies and let people who choose to use railways pay their own way.
If railways are so terribly uneconomic and inefficient that their users can't pay their own way, then stop investing in them.
Is that you, Dr Beeching?
Beeching didn't do it properly. Pruning state owned and operated railways while keeping them subsidised by the taxpayer achieves little. It kept the railways being ran for state-related interest groups, rather than for the consumers.
Get them out of state involvement altogether, like the Japanese main rail routes are done. More Japanese people commute by rail as a proportion than possibly any other country in the world and they do so primarily (eg apart from the north island, which is less populated than Scotland) without subsidies.
If we got rid of subsidising, we'd have no lines left. None of them are profitable.
And Japanese railways were built and paid for by the taxpayer.
They're not profitable as they're not ran for the consumers, they're ran for lobbyists. Just as the state always does.
Japanese railways are ran for, and developed for, their consumers. That's why so many more people use them than in this country - and development is better done around stations too as the companies concerned want to ensure that their stations are popular.
Their system works, our system doesn't. If our system is so great, why do you whinge about it so often?
No the Japanese system works because the taxpayer funded the routes and they invested in them for a one hundred year period with no expectation of a profit.
The non-profitable routes in Japan are still owned by the taxpayer, oddly you don't seem to want to close those down?
The routes the Japanese taxpayer pays for are eg their north island routes, which is even less habitable and less populated than Scotland.
Policies in Scotland/their north island, should be different to policies in England/their south island.
Japan wouldn't have any railways at all without the taxpayer having built them. When we've got the Government working and building the railways over a 100 year period, sure let's have the debate then. Right now the private companies do sod all.
Apart from wondering why they bothered with Brexit if immigration is still what they are fretting about, I can't help thinking that climate change might have quite a lot to do with 2 and 3 pretty soon if it keeps being ignored, not to mention 1.
The French can build railways because of long-term stability knowing that SNCF isn't going to be split up pointlessly.
No incentive for investment here = no improvement.
Separate public company, British Rail, should own and run the railways, should be guaranteed funding and there should be a 100 year plan for delivery. All Governments should stick to it.
Obviously easy in Japan because the Government never changes.
Penny probably won't slip out much further; topping up again before the next round of voting and everyone remembering that, regardless of the debates, she's still (probably) 2nd (and therefore in "possession" of a run-off slot), at least until Badenoch gets knocked out. Tugendhat going today will probably help Mordaunt tomorrow as well.
We need a massive state investment into the railways to ensure they are safe as the climate emergency gets worse.
And it would put a lot of people to work and could be a Brexit benefit with state aid.
F**k that, we already have massive state subsidies of the railways.
We should instead be looking to eliminate state subsidies and let people who choose to use railways pay their own way.
If railways are so terribly uneconomic and inefficient that their users can't pay their own way, then stop investing in them.
Is that you, Dr Beeching?
Beeching didn't do it properly. Pruning state owned and operated railways while keeping them subsidised by the taxpayer achieves little. It kept the railways being ran for state-related interest groups, rather than for the consumers.
Get them out of state involvement altogether, like the Japanese main rail routes are done. More Japanese people commute by rail as a proportion than possibly any other country in the world and they do so primarily (eg apart from the north island, which is less populated than Scotland) without subsidies.
If we got rid of subsidising, we'd have no lines left. None of them are profitable.
And Japanese railways were built and paid for by the taxpayer.
They're not profitable as they're not ran for the consumers, they're ran for lobbyists. Just as the state always does.
Japanese railways are ran for, and developed for, their consumers. That's why so many more people use them than in this country - and development is better done around stations too as the companies concerned want to ensure that their stations are popular.
Their system works, our system doesn't. If our system is so great, why do you whinge about it so often?
No the Japanese system works because the taxpayer funded the routes and they invested in them for a one hundred year period with no expectation of a profit.
The non-profitable routes in Japan are still owned by the taxpayer, oddly you don't seem to want to close those down?
The routes the Japanese taxpayer pays for are eg their north island routes, which is even less habitable and less populated than Scotland.
Policies in Scotland/their north island, should be different to policies in England/their south island.
Japan wouldn't have any railways at all without the taxpayer having built them. When we've got the Government working and building the railways over a 100 year period, sure let's have the debate then. Right now the private companies do sod all.
It sound like the railways in Japan are BR's dream:
"The privatised network is highly efficient, requiring few subsidies and running with extreme punctuality."
We need a massive state investment into the railways to ensure they are safe as the climate emergency gets worse.
And it would put a lot of people to work and could be a Brexit benefit with state aid.
F**k that, we already have massive state subsidies of the railways.
We should instead be looking to eliminate state subsidies and let people who choose to use railways pay their own way.
If railways are so terribly uneconomic and inefficient that their users can't pay their own way, then stop investing in them.
Is that you, Dr Beeching?
Beeching didn't do it properly. Pruning state owned and operated railways while keeping them subsidised by the taxpayer achieves little. It kept the railways being ran for state-related interest groups, rather than for the consumers.
Get them out of state involvement altogether, like the Japanese main rail routes are done. More Japanese people commute by rail as a proportion than possibly any other country in the world and they do so primarily (eg apart from the north island, which is less populated than Scotland) without subsidies.
If we got rid of subsidising, we'd have no lines left. None of them are profitable.
And Japanese railways were built and paid for by the taxpayer.
They're not profitable as they're not ran for the consumers, they're ran for lobbyists. Just as the state always does.
Japanese railways are ran for, and developed for, their consumers. That's why so many more people use them than in this country - and development is better done around stations too as the companies concerned want to ensure that their stations are popular.
Their system works, our system doesn't. If our system is so great, why do you whinge about it so often?
No the Japanese system works because the taxpayer funded the routes and they invested in them for a one hundred year period with no expectation of a profit.
The non-profitable routes in Japan are still owned by the taxpayer, oddly you don't seem to want to close those down?
The routes the Japanese taxpayer pays for are eg their north island routes, which is even less habitable and less populated than Scotland.
Policies in Scotland/their north island, should be different to policies in England/their south island.
Japan wouldn't have any railways at all without the taxpayer having built them. When we've got the Government working and building the railways over a 100 year period, sure let's have the debate then. Right now the private companies do sod all.
Utter bollocks. Much of the railways were privately built before the state nationalised them and treated them as an asset to be sweated down in managed decline until privatisation saw companies encouraging passengers to return.
Nationalisation would mean your 100 year investment would be politicians looking at railways and thinking "nah, the NHS gets us more votes instead". You're in cloud cuckoo land if you think the state can or will ever do wise investments.
Even the Tories seem to have decided privatisation has been a disaster, they just won't get GBR to run the railways because that would be tacitly accepting that Labour was right.
What do we gain in the new arrangement of the French owned companies running the railways? Can anyone explain? We set the timetables, we set the routes, we set the trains, we set the company branding. And yet we give money to the French to run the trains. Why?
Every Tory MP has now seen the Spectator story, and there’s probably a few of them tapping their phones on Betfair this morning.
I doubt the Spectator story is key. More likely to be MPs returning to Westminster this morning for the hustings and ballot, and exchanging notes on votes between themselves and the lobby.
If we privatised the railways here and removed all subsidies, we'd have no railways left.
Japan built their railways and maintained them via the Government for decades, easy to privatise when it worked fine in the first place. We are not there yet - but we could be.
Badenoch might pull out after this next vote, don't we think?
If she drops votes I think yes. If she still gains a few she may as well continue on, the more she gets the more potential influence.
Yep, depends how she does. But if it's clear she has no chance of the run-off I reckon she might pull out and save the party a ballot. Most think not going by the odds for total ballots = 4 so I've done a small bet on that.
We need a massive state investment into the railways to ensure they are safe as the climate emergency gets worse.
And it would put a lot of people to work and could be a Brexit benefit with state aid.
Subsidise e-bikes. Create separate cycle lanes completely sectioned off from roads through town centres and out to the suburbs. Treat them like tube lines, but in every city.
Free park and ride in every city, starting 2 miles out of centre. Penalise car use in every city centre, congestion charge as needed etc.
Government subsidised affordable "car share" clubs so people can rent car use by the hour, up to a certain numbers of hours, per week. Costs increasing per each additional hour.
Invest in high speed maglev / hyperloop tech for fast city to city travel, cost and nimbys be damned. Plus motorway road pricing per mile.
Ultimately 20th (and 21st) century life is structured entirely around the motorcar. Our cities are planned around it, our houses are built around it, our offices and out of town shopping centres are designed for it.
I'm not advocating banning cars, far from it - just trying to imagine what our society might look like if it wasn't structured around the motorcar, and how we might get there.
That works in urban and suburban areas. Meanwhile out in the sticks we either need bus services (which nobody is willing to pay for) or you're using the car.
That's fine, that's what park & ride is for. Car gets you to town, bus or bike gets you around town.
Penny probably won't slip out much further; topping up again before the next round of voting and everyone remembering that, regardless of the debates, she's still (probably) 2nd (and therefore in "possession" of a run-off slot), at least until Badenoch gets knocked out. Tugendhat going today will probably help Mordaunt tomorrow as well.
Yeah I've invested ~ £40 into Penny with her slipping out too
After P charge
+344.42 Rishi +148.83 Penny +291.96 Truss "Oh shit" Kemi "Serious conversations" Tommy T.
Even the Tories seem to have decided privatisation has been a disaster, they just won't get GBR to run the railways because that would be tacitly accepting that Labour was right.
What do we gain in the new arrangement of the French owned companies running the railways? Can anyone explain? We set the timetables, we set the routes, we set the trains, we set the company branding. And yet we give money to the French to run the trains. Why?
What could be less patriotic than that?
Because businesses whether French or otherwise operate on the basis of the interests of their consumers and their future, rather than politicians looking at opinion polls and listening to lobbyists.
I'd rather have a French company running our rails than civil servants and politicians thinking what gets more votes and what lobbyists are saying to them today.
Though proper privatisation would be better. Railways improved here post-privatisation despite privatisation not being done properly, they should have been properly privatised, Japan-style, with a message that after x date there would be no subsidies whatsoever apart from in routes like Scotland that aren't viable without them.
I dont know why they are concerned about infighting. You're supposed to infight at such times. It still exists even if theres no debate.
Yeah but they are verging on screaming 'c***' in each others faces. Ok, not litreally, but they are effectively trepanning themselves to try and let out the demons
One TV debate was one too many.
Why can't one candidate have said "the party has five excellent options from which to choose" and conduct themselves with unremitting politeness.
I suspect that such a candidate would reap benefit from such a stance.
If we privatised the railways here and removed all subsidies, we'd have no railways left.
Japan built their railways and maintained them via the Government for decades, easy to privatise when it worked fine in the first place. We are not there yet - but we could be.
On the surface the story looks pretty similar. Investment by private companies at the start, followed by nationalisation in the 20th century, then privatisation just before the turn of the century.
We need a massive state investment into the railways to ensure they are safe as the climate emergency gets worse.
And it would put a lot of people to work and could be a Brexit benefit with state aid.
Subsidise e-bikes. Create separate cycle lanes completely sectioned off from roads through town centres and out to the suburbs. Treat them like tube lines, but in every city.
Free park and ride in every city, starting 2 miles out of centre. Penalise car use in every city centre, congestion charge as needed etc.
Government subsidised affordable "car share" clubs so people can rent car use by the hour, up to a certain numbers of hours, per week. Costs increasing per each additional hour.
Invest in high speed maglev / hyperloop tech for fast city to city travel, cost and nimbys be damned. Plus motorway road pricing per mile.
Ultimately 20th (and 21st) century life is structured entirely around the motorcar. Our cities are planned around it, our houses are built around it, our offices and out of town shopping centres are designed for it.
I'm not advocating banning cars, far from it - just trying to imagine what our society might look like if it wasn't structured around the motorcar, and how we might get there.
That works in urban and suburban areas. Meanwhile out in the sticks we either need bus services (which nobody is willing to pay for) or you're using the car.
That's fine, that's what park & ride is for. Car gets you to town, bus or bike gets you around town.
Park and ride sucks
What's the problem with it? It seems okay to me.
You’re at the mercy of a crappy unreliable bus to get back to your car to get home. I avoid them like the plague.
If we privatised the railways here and removed all subsidies, we'd have no railways left.
Japan built their railways and maintained them via the Government for decades, easy to privatise when it worked fine in the first place. We are not there yet - but we could be.
On the surface the story looks pretty similar. Investment by private companies at the start, followed by nationalisation in the 20th century, then privatisation just before the turn of the century.
Indeed, but the privatisation was done better. Much better.
If we privatised the railways here and removed all subsidies, we'd have no railways left.
Japan built their railways and maintained them via the Government for decades, easy to privatise when it worked fine in the first place. We are not there yet - but we could be.
On the surface the story looks pretty similar. Investment by private companies at the start, followed by nationalisation in the 20th century, then privatisation just before the turn of the century.
Indeed, but the privatisation was done better. Much better.
Someone must have done a PhD thesis on the differences. It's quite interesting how similar the timelines are but how divergent the results are.
1. UQ – @CarolineLucas - asking the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the Government’s preparedness for the extreme heat in the UK
I expect the answer will be that Johnson is fine at Chequers as they have a nice cellar he is working from so everyone can go hang.
We need a massive state investment into the railways to ensure they are safe as the climate emergency gets worse.
And it would put a lot of people to work and could be a Brexit benefit with state aid.
Subsidise e-bikes. Create separate cycle lanes completely sectioned off from roads through town centres and out to the suburbs. Treat them like tube lines, but in every city.
Free park and ride in every city, starting 2 miles out of centre. Penalise car use in every city centre, congestion charge as needed etc.
Government subsidised affordable "car share" clubs so people can rent car use by the hour, up to a certain numbers of hours, per week. Costs increasing per each additional hour.
Invest in high speed maglev / hyperloop tech for fast city to city travel, cost and nimbys be damned. Plus motorway road pricing per mile.
Ultimately 20th (and 21st) century life is structured entirely around the motorcar. Our cities are planned around it, our houses are built around it, our offices and out of town shopping centres are designed for it.
I'm not advocating banning cars, far from it - just trying to imagine what our society might look like if it wasn't structured around the motorcar, and how we might get there.
That works in urban and suburban areas. Meanwhile out in the sticks we either need bus services (which nobody is willing to pay for) or you're using the car.
That's fine, that's what park & ride is for. Car gets you to town, bus or bike gets you around town.
Park and ride sucks
What's the problem with it? It seems okay to me.
You’re at the mercy of a crappy unreliable bus to get back to your car to get home. I avoid them like the plague.
Yes, there's nothing there other than a vague Holly Willoughby vibe. It's not enough surely - not even in these odd times.
A huge exaggeration, I would say. Holly Willoughby, if I can remember rightly who she is, has never struck me as a rare politician who can empathise.
HW is all about empathy so I don't totally disagree. But PM has surprised me on the downside in seeming to be little more than that. I actually think she'd be better hosting Good Morning than running the government. That's not offered as insult. Hosting GM is something few could do well.
And she was my 66/1 dark horse hunch bet a few months back so I don't have a downer on her. Quite like her in truth. Just not imo the best choice for the Cons to make and I sense they aren't going to. She'll either not make the run-off or she'll lose it to Sunak. That's how it looks to me right this second.
If we privatised the railways here and removed all subsidies, we'd have no railways left.
Japan built their railways and maintained them via the Government for decades, easy to privatise when it worked fine in the first place. We are not there yet - but we could be.
On the surface the story looks pretty similar. Investment by private companies at the start, followed by nationalisation in the 20th century, then privatisation just before the turn of the century.
Indeed, but the privatisation was done better. Much better.
People forget just how bad ‘80s BR was, before privatisation.
Their own slogan was “We’re Getting There”, and the timetable was about as optional as the catering.
If we privatised the railways here and removed all subsidies, we'd have no railways left.
Japan built their railways and maintained them via the Government for decades, easy to privatise when it worked fine in the first place. We are not there yet - but we could be.
On the surface the story looks pretty similar. Investment by private companies at the start, followed by nationalisation in the 20th century, then privatisation just before the turn of the century.
Indeed, but the privatisation was done better. Much better.
People forget just how bad ‘80s BR was, before privatisation.
Their own slogan was “We’re Getting There”, and the timetable was about as optional as the catering.
My train the other day was an hour and a half late. And it cost me £90.
35 degrees in my East London back garden. Normally my garden is a couple of degrees cooler than the ambient temperature around here more generally (urban heat island effects still apply in the suburbs).
1. UQ – @CarolineLucas - asking the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the Government’s preparedness for the extreme heat in the UK
I expect the answer will be that Johnson is fine at Chequers as they have a nice cellar he is working from so everyone can go hang.
The Honourable Member for Brighton will be pleased to know, that the cafes and ice-cream vans of her constituency will be having a very profitable day.
I dont know why they are concerned about infighting. You're supposed to infight at such times. It still exists even if theres no debate.
I suspect ITV spoiled it for everyone. Clearly they thought "we can't just re-run the C4 debate", so they tried to find a different, more hostile angle to it - directly encouraging each of the candidates to attack others. Then you have idiots like Peston going "oh my god they are attacking each other" and writing articles about how the Conservatives are infighting.
Made for funny TV but not surprised that Sunak and Truss have got cold feet now after that.
Anyway I always though 3 of these debates within a few days of each other was bordering on overkill. The position now is the same position everyone was saying when Boris was having his bunker Downfall moment - we don't run a presidential system here.
Sunak statement specifically referred to the Channel 4 debate as being problematic.
Really? Oh well, shows what I know then!
I wouldn't retreat so easily, the chances that Rishi speak with forked tongue are non zero. If what rattled him was being attacked over covid fraud on ITV you'd expect him to want to hide the fact.
If we privatised the railways here and removed all subsidies, we'd have no railways left.
Japan built their railways and maintained them via the Government for decades, easy to privatise when it worked fine in the first place. We are not there yet - but we could be.
On the surface the story looks pretty similar. Investment by private companies at the start, followed by nationalisation in the 20th century, then privatisation just before the turn of the century.
Indeed, but the privatisation was done better. Much better.
People forget just how bad ‘80s BR was, before privatisation.
Their own slogan was “We’re Getting There”, and the timetable was about as optional as the catering.
One of the curious things about privatisation was not giving the train companies right to operate the track the trains run on.
In its comms to customers my local operator was always moaning about the intransigence of the government owned track people.
If we privatised the railways here and removed all subsidies, we'd have no railways left.
Japan built their railways and maintained them via the Government for decades, easy to privatise when it worked fine in the first place. We are not there yet - but we could be.
On the surface the story looks pretty similar. Investment by private companies at the start, followed by nationalisation in the 20th century, then privatisation just before the turn of the century.
Indeed, but the privatisation was done better. Much better.
People forget just how bad ‘80s BR was, before privatisation.
Their own slogan was “We’re Getting There”, and the timetable was about as optional as the catering.
BR breakfasts were top notch. Bring back the restaurant car!
If we privatised the railways here and removed all subsidies, we'd have no railways left.
Japan built their railways and maintained them via the Government for decades, easy to privatise when it worked fine in the first place. We are not there yet - but we could be.
On the surface the story looks pretty similar. Investment by private companies at the start, followed by nationalisation in the 20th century, then privatisation just before the turn of the century.
Indeed, but the privatisation was done better. Much better.
People forget just how bad ‘80s BR was, before privatisation.
Their own slogan was “We’re Getting There”, and the timetable was about as optional as the catering.
BR breakfasts were top notch. Bring back the restaurant car!
Boiled eggs and toast when bouncing across Rannoch Muir ...
1. UQ – @CarolineLucas - asking the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the Government’s preparedness for the extreme heat in the UK
I expect the answer will be that Johnson is fine at Chequers as they have a nice cellar he is working from so everyone can go hang.
The Honourable Member for Brighton will be pleased to know, that the cafes and ice-cream vans of her constituency will be having a very profitable day.
Lol. It might be even more profitable when the train back to London is cancelled...
Yes, there's nothing there other than a vague Holly Willoughby vibe. It's not enough surely - not even in these odd times.
A huge exaggeration, I would say. Holly Willoughby, if I can remember rightly who she is, has never struck me as a rare politician who can empathise.
HW is all about empathy so I don't totally disagree. But PM has surprised me on the downside in seeming to be little more than that. I actually think she'd be better hosting Good Morning than running the government. That's not offered as insult. Hosting GM is something few could do well.
And she was my 66/1 dark horse hunch bet a few months back so I don't have a downer on her. Quite like her in truth. Just not imo the best choice for the Cons to make and I sense they aren't going to. She'll either not make the run-off or she'll lose it to Sunak. That's how it looks to me right this second.
As discussed by posters yesterday, I think she needs two years or so to decide what to do with her communication skills, and decide what her pitch is. Just because of what she can unusually project as a politician, If Sunak fails in 2024, I think she'll be nearby as the main challenger again, possibly with Tugendhat also having advanced nearer into contention.
Hoping that will be the peak as sun is swinging away from the big windows now.
Your two fans are just blowing hot air around. To the extent the motors warm up, they make the room slightly hotter. Turn them off.
Oh, hold on. You are cooled by evaporation of sweat (and convection) which is greater in drafts, so turn the fans back on again for your comfort (and safety) but don't expect them to cool the room.
Nobody seems to want to answer my question: under the new GBR arrangement, what is the BENEFIT of paying First Group to run the railways?
I answered it.
The benefit is that First Group have the incentive of running the railways for the benefits of their consumers, so that their consumers pay them, so they make money.
If its state owned and operated then the politicians are worried about political concerns, polling, lobbyists, "stakeholders" and alternative funding demands like the NHS instead of the consumers.
I dont know why they are concerned about infighting. You're supposed to infight at such times. It still exists even if theres no debate.
Yeah but they are verging on screaming 'c***' in each others faces. Ok, not litreally, but they are effectively trepanning themselves to try and let out the demons
One TV debate was one too many.
Why can't one candidate have said "the party has five excellent options from which to choose" and conduct themselves with unremitting politeness.
I suspect that such a candidate would reap benefit from such a stance.
BiB - Because it wouldn't be true?
I know that!! I'm talking about within the CP world.
By the end of this week some people will probably be complaining about it being too cold. I was in Buxton yesterday which is forecast to be in the teens from Wednesday onwards.
Not a spoof and remember, it is Mordaunt vs Truss for the other runoff spot so tweeting the chart might be cleverer than you think; it shows her ahead of Liz Truss.
If we privatised the railways here and removed all subsidies, we'd have no railways left.
Japan built their railways and maintained them via the Government for decades, easy to privatise when it worked fine in the first place. We are not there yet - but we could be.
On the surface the story looks pretty similar. Investment by private companies at the start, followed by nationalisation in the 20th century, then privatisation just before the turn of the century.
Indeed, but the privatisation was done better. Much better.
People forget just how bad ‘80s BR was, before privatisation.
Their own slogan was “We’re Getting There”, and the timetable was about as optional as the catering.
One of the curious things about privatisation was not giving the train companies right to operate the track the trains run on.
In its comms to customers my local operator was always moaning about the intransigence of the government owned track people.
Trouble is that companies would be sometimes running trains on another company's track, unless you make the companies very big, and even then there are areas where it is unavoidable, as the Big Four of 1923-47 showed (and arsguably BR never quite managed to develop a standard approach, hence the persistence of third rail leccy in the South of England).
If we privatised the railways here and removed all subsidies, we'd have no railways left.
Japan built their railways and maintained them via the Government for decades, easy to privatise when it worked fine in the first place. We are not there yet - but we could be.
On the surface the story looks pretty similar. Investment by private companies at the start, followed by nationalisation in the 20th century, then privatisation just before the turn of the century.
Indeed, but the privatisation was done better. Much better.
People forget just how bad ‘80s BR was, before privatisation.
Their own slogan was “We’re Getting There”, and the timetable was about as optional as the catering.
My train the other day was an hour and a half late. And it cost me £90.
And yet that's still better than what you'd have had under nationalised railways, and yet you want to keep our failing system instead of adopting a proper, privatised, functional, subsidy-free system whereby railways companies need to put YOU their consumer first to get their income instead of lobbying politicians to get it instead.
Nobody seems to want to answer my question: under the new GBR arrangement, what is the BENEFIT of paying First Group to run the railways?
I answered it.
The benefit is that First Group have the incentive of running the railways for the benefits of their consumers, so that their consumers pay them, so they make money.
If its state owned and operated then the politicians are worried about political concerns, polling, lobbyists, "stakeholders" and alternative funding demands like the NHS instead of the consumers.
First Group have the incentive of running the railways for the benefits of their shareholders. That is their primary duty. Not keeping travellers happy. Happiness for the traveller is an incidental and wholly contingent result.
The beeb should continue the 'death' theme of their weather charts, maybe have a dragon rise from the sea with toxic 'haar breath'. Have smog cover the country and when it dissipates, one of the cities has gone missing. Axe murderer ice warnings. Fuck it, just go the whole hog and have a couple of police officers knock on the door and ask if they can come in and deliver the forecast
Nobody seems to want to answer my question: under the new GBR arrangement, what is the BENEFIT of paying First Group to run the railways?
I answered it.
The benefit is that First Group have the incentive of running the railways for the benefits of their consumers, so that their consumers pay them, so they make money.
If its state owned and operated then the politicians are worried about political concerns, polling, lobbyists, "stakeholders" and alternative funding demands like the NHS instead of the consumers.
First Group have the incentive of running the railways for the benefits of their shareholders. That is their primary duty. Not keeping travellers happy. Happiness for the traveller is an incidental and wholly contingent result.
Unhappy travellers, they lose consumers, they lose income, they lose value for their shareholders.
Happy travellers, they keep consumers, they generate income, they make value for their shareholders.
Nobody seems to want to answer my question: under the new GBR arrangement, what is the BENEFIT of paying First Group to run the railways?
I answered it.
The benefit is that First Group have the incentive of running the railways for the benefits of their consumers, so that their consumers pay them, so they make money.
If its state owned and operated then the politicians are worried about political concerns, polling, lobbyists, "stakeholders" and alternative funding demands like the NHS instead of the consumers.
Surely this is wrong?
First Group get paid a guaranteed amount of money every year, what incentive is there to run the railways?
Note I am talking about Great British Railways, where it's a contract not a franchise.
You didn't answer that, all the stuff you mentioned literally still happens because the money comes from the Government, who do everything but actually run the train.
Yes, there's nothing there other than a vague Holly Willoughby vibe. It's not enough surely - not even in these odd times.
A huge exaggeration, I would say. Holly Willoughby, if I can remember rightly who she is, has never struck me as a rare politician who can empathise.
HW is all about empathy so I don't totally disagree. But PM has surprised me on the downside in seeming to be little more than that. I actually think she'd be better hosting Good Morning than running the government. That's not offered as insult. Hosting GM is something few could do well.
And she was my 66/1 dark horse hunch bet a few months back so I don't have a downer on her. Quite like her in truth. Just not imo the best choice for the Cons to make and I sense they aren't going to. She'll either not make the run-off or she'll lose it to Sunak. That's how it looks to me right this second.
As discussed by posters yesterday, I think she needs two years or so to decide what to do with her communication skills, and decide what her pitch is. Just because of what she can unusually project as a politician, If Sunak fails in 2024, I think she'll be nearby as the main challenger again, possibly with Tugendhat also having advanced.
Likewise Kemi, a charismatic communicator with golf club bore political slogans. She needs to decide if she wants to run the country or become another Nigel Farage on GB News.
Nobody seems to want to answer my question: under the new GBR arrangement, what is the BENEFIT of paying First Group to run the railways?
I answered it.
The benefit is that First Group have the incentive of running the railways for the benefits of their consumers, so that their consumers pay them, so they make money.
If its state owned and operated then the politicians are worried about political concerns, polling, lobbyists, "stakeholders" and alternative funding demands like the NHS instead of the consumers.
First Group have the incentive of running the railways for the benefits of their shareholders. That is their primary duty. Not keeping travellers happy. Happiness for the traveller is an incidental and wholly contingent result.
Unhappy travellers, they lose consumers, they lose income, they lose value for their shareholders.
Happy travellers, they keep consumers, they generate income, they make value for their shareholders.
No they don't lose money, you don't seem to understand the new GBR model.
They get paid a guaranteed sum every year, they are guaranteed a profit.
Nobody seems to want to answer my question: under the new GBR arrangement, what is the BENEFIT of paying First Group to run the railways?
Oh, it's so obvious, I'm not surprised no-one bothered to answer. The reason is of course that private operations have typically done better at running things that state monopolies, in the UK at least. And of course this is not surprising, the fact that they can lose the gig at the next renewal keeps them on their toes. If it doesn't, the government can boot them out, unlike nationalised industries which become complacent.
That's why many public services are contracted out. It really isn't complicated. The only surprise is that we don't do it more.
If we privatised the railways here and removed all subsidies, we'd have no railways left.
Japan built their railways and maintained them via the Government for decades, easy to privatise when it worked fine in the first place. We are not there yet - but we could be.
On the surface the story looks pretty similar. Investment by private companies at the start, followed by nationalisation in the 20th century, then privatisation just before the turn of the century.
Indeed, but the privatisation was done better. Much better.
People forget just how bad ‘80s BR was, before privatisation.
Their own slogan was “We’re Getting There”, and the timetable was about as optional as the catering.
My train the other day was an hour and a half late. And it cost me £90.
And yet that's still better than what you'd have had under nationalised railways, and yet you want to keep our failing system instead of adopting a proper, privatised, functional, subsidy-free system whereby railways companies need to put YOU their consumer first to get their income instead of lobbying politicians to get it instead.
You are what, 39? Born around 1983? So about 11-14 when nationalisation came? Your personal experience of the nationalised railway wouyld have been, at most, ticking off loco names ...
I can tell you that in many ways BR was a lot easier to deal with than the chaos of nationalisation. Above all if you wanted long journeys other than simple commuter ratruns, or properly designed interiors, or connections which were held even if train 1 was a little late.
By the end of this week some people will probably be complaining about it being too cold. I was in Buxton yesterday which is forecast to be in the teens from Wednesday onwards.
Also nonsense, if my train is an hour and half late I can't do anything else because I have no other way to travel. There is no competition on railways. Privatisation is a con.
Nobody seems to want to answer my question: under the new GBR arrangement, what is the BENEFIT of paying First Group to run the railways?
I answered it.
The benefit is that First Group have the incentive of running the railways for the benefits of their consumers, so that their consumers pay them, so they make money.
If its state owned and operated then the politicians are worried about political concerns, polling, lobbyists, "stakeholders" and alternative funding demands like the NHS instead of the consumers.
Surely this is wrong?
First Group get paid a guaranteed amount of money every year, what incentive is there to run the railways?
Note I am talking about Great British Railways, where it's a contract not a franchise.
You didn't answer that, all the stuff you mentioned literally still happens because the money comes from the Government, who do everything but actually run the train.
As I've said, there should not be a penny coming from the Government in my eyes.
The money should be coming from consumers, so that the people running the railways run them for the benefit of the consumers to maximise their income, instead of for the value of "stakeholders" that can lobby politicians.
Comments
I was pretty struck by the round where they all got to ask questions of each other. TT went for an underarm throw to Penny Mordaunt. Intriguing. A shame Kemi is on her high horse so much about Penny’s equality legislation. Because she’d do far better as Mordaunt’s chancellor than Rishi’s. If the two of them rallied around Mordaunt that campaign would be unstoppable.
As it is, I guess it’s Sunak vs Truss. They’ll both be a cluster but I’d choose Truss over Sunak every time based on his performances.
You don't think transportation is a societal good? How do you think food appears in your supermarket?
Literary Digest poll had somewhat more sophisticated methodology; in 1936 they sent out 10m mailings and got back over 2 million responses. And also had a great track record forecasting US presidential results. . . until 1936 that is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Literary_Digest
Though not sure in case of ConHom survey IF there's any reason to think it might be out of wack this time around?
Made for funny TV but not surprised that Sunak and Truss have got cold feet now after that.
Anyway I always though 3 of these debates within a few days of each other was bordering on overkill. The position now is the same position everyone was saying when Boris was having his bunker Downfall moment - we don't run a presidential system here.
And Japanese railways were built and paid for by the taxpayer.
How does food appear in the supermarket? The companies involved pay privately for the vehicles and their fuel to get the food to the supermarket.
I disagree on the last point though - we dont get a vote, but they are running publicly to be essentially president of the Tories, and it's as convenient a way for Tory members to view them as any other.
If this sort of franchise on the railways is not privatisation, does the same go for franchises in the NHS?
Japanese railways are ran for, and developed for, their consumers. That's why so many more people use them than in this country - and development is better done around stations too as the companies concerned want to ensure that their stations are popular.
Their system works, our system doesn't. If our system is so great, why do you whinge about it so often?
I certainly don't think they should be doing that...
The non-profitable routes in Japan are still owned by the taxpayer, oddly you don't seem to want to close those down?
Probably this is due to MPs mixing and comparing notes as they arrive back at the Commons, and perhaps also CCHQ and/or the 1922 applying pressure.
Betfair next prime minister
2 Rishi Sunak 50%
3.25 Liz Truss 31%
5.7 Penny Mordaunt 18%
21 Kemi Badenoch 5%
160 Tom Tugendhat
Next Conservative leader
2.02 Rishi Sunak 50%
3.25 Liz Truss 31%
5.8 Penny Mordaunt 17%
21 Kemi Badenoch 5%
120 Tom Tugendhat
To be in final two
1.02 Rishi Sunak 98%
1.81 Liz Truss 55%
2.22 Penny Mordaunt 45%
11.5 Kemi Badenoch 9%
110 Tom Tugendhat
Policies in Scotland/their north island, should be different to policies in England/their south island.
Why can't one candidate have said "the party has five excellent options from which to choose" and conduct themselves with unremitting politeness.
I suspect that such a candidate would reap benefit from such a stance.
Franchises/contracts are too short so the companies don't have an incentive to invest.
The Government has no long-term direction for the railways so they do short-term fixes.
If we had a 100 year rail plan we'd do a lot better - and we did before the Government started hacking the railways to pieces and cutting the funding.
Publicly own it, cut out the third party companies that offer nothing, propose a proper 100 year plan with high-speed rail, change the planning laws and get the trains and track built and owned here.
Easy. Get on with it.
https://twitter.com/pennymordaunt/status/1548990968027926530
The pandemic didn't cause the deficit, lockdown did. Lockdown was a catastrophic mistake, I very much regret supporting it.
1. Winning the next election
2. Immigration
3. Cost of living
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/net-zero-slumps-to-bottom-of-tory-members-priority-list-x0j2xqqjk?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=25a843b30d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_07_18_03_06&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-25a843b30d-190992405
Apart from wondering why they bothered with Brexit if immigration is still what they are fretting about, I can't help thinking that climate change might have quite a lot to do with 2 and 3 pretty soon if it keeps being ignored, not to mention 1.
No incentive for investment here = no improvement.
Separate public company, British Rail, should own and run the railways, should be guaranteed funding and there should be a 100 year plan for delivery. All Governments should stick to it.
Obviously easy in Japan because the Government never changes.
"The privatised network is highly efficient, requiring few subsidies and running with extreme punctuality."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Japan
Nationalisation would mean your 100 year investment would be politicians looking at railways and thinking "nah, the NHS gets us more votes instead". You're in cloud cuckoo land if you think the state can or will ever do wise investments.
What do we gain in the new arrangement of the French owned companies running the railways? Can anyone explain? We set the timetables, we set the routes, we set the trains, we set the company branding. And yet we give money to the French to run the trains. Why?
What could be less patriotic than that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvNVwLKwzeQ
Japan built their railways and maintained them via the Government for decades, easy to privatise when it worked fine in the first place. We are not there yet - but we could be.
After P charge
+344.42 Rishi
+148.83 Penny
+291.96 Truss
"Oh shit" Kemi
"Serious conversations" Tommy T.
I'd rather have a French company running our rails than civil servants and politicians thinking what gets more votes and what lobbyists are saying to them today.
Though proper privatisation would be better. Railways improved here post-privatisation despite privatisation not being done properly, they should have been properly privatised, Japan-style, with a message that after x date there would be no subsidies whatsoever apart from in routes like Scotland that aren't viable without them.
I’ve managed to keep inside at a relatively comfortable 25; I hope I can keep it that ‘cool’ for the rest of the day
https://www.meteociel.fr/observations-meteo/temperatures.php
Hoping that will be the peak as sun is swinging away from the big windows now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2646277
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/u10j3c88x#?date=2022-07-18
Having said that, it's kind of margin of error stuff.
1. UQ – @CarolineLucas - asking the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the Government’s preparedness for the extreme heat in the UK
I expect the answer will be that Johnson is fine at Chequers as they have a nice cellar he is working from so everyone can go hang.
And she was my 66/1 dark horse hunch bet a few months back so I don't have a downer on her. Quite like her in truth. Just not imo the best choice for the Cons to make and I sense they aren't going to. She'll either not make the run-off or she'll lose it to Sunak. That's how it looks to me right this second.
Their own slogan was “We’re Getting There”, and the timetable was about as optional as the catering.
In its comms to customers my local operator was always moaning about the intransigence of the government owned track people.
But my window is West facing...
Oh, hold on. You are cooled by evaporation of sweat (and convection) which is greater in drafts, so turn the fans back on again for your comfort (and safety) but don't expect them to cool the room.
The "nobody is as popular" bit was my joke
The benefit is that First Group have the incentive of running the railways for the benefits of their consumers, so that their consumers pay them, so they make money.
If its state owned and operated then the politicians are worried about political concerns, polling, lobbyists, "stakeholders" and alternative funding demands like the NHS instead of the consumers.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/gcqwurqwy#?date=2022-07-18
Fuck it, just go the whole hog and have a couple of police officers knock on the door and ask if they can come in and deliver the forecast
Happy travellers, they keep consumers, they generate income, they make value for their shareholders.
First Group get paid a guaranteed amount of money every year, what incentive is there to run the railways?
Note I am talking about Great British Railways, where it's a contract not a franchise.
You didn't answer that, all the stuff you mentioned literally still happens because the money comes from the Government, who do everything but actually run the train.
They get paid a guaranteed sum every year, they are guaranteed a profit.
That's why many public services are contracted out. It really isn't complicated. The only surprise is that we don't do it more.
I can tell you that in many ways BR was a lot easier to deal with than the chaos of nationalisation. Above all if you wanted long journeys other than simple commuter ratruns, or properly designed interiors, or connections which were held even if train 1 was a little late.
The money should be coming from consumers, so that the people running the railways run them for the benefit of the consumers to maximise their income, instead of for the value of "stakeholders" that can lobby politicians.