Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Why I’m not convinced by LAB’S double digit poll leads – politicalbetting.com

123457»

Comments

  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561
    eek said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Those who look upon the British Rail age with anything other than utter horror are deluding themselves.

    45 minute delay and £60 for the privilege, ROFL you are deluded!

    Nationalising the railways would not return us to BR days. Unless you think LNER today is like British Rail
    Have you claimed your £30 refund yet - it’s nationwide but this is the first site that had the time boundaries and refund levels clearly detailed https://www.scotrail.co.uk/plan-your-journey/our-delay-repay-guarantee
    I have automatic delay repay so it does it for me. But thanks :)
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,384
    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Those who look upon the British Rail age with anything other than utter horror are deluding themselves.

    45 minute delay and £60 for the privilege, ROFL you are deluded!

    Nationalising the railways would not return us to BR days. Unless you think LNER today is like British Rail
    I don't know if you know this, but a car crashed earlier today. WHICH PROVES CARS USED TO BE BETTER.

    That's the substance of your argument. An anecdote devoid of context.
    I think the idea nationalising the railways will herald a return to BR is nonsense.

    You can support nationalisation whilst also accepting BR was shit - as I do.

    My point was that if you think 45 minutes and £60 is somehow "good" I am going to laugh at you. We can do an awful lot better.
    Also, improved standards don't mean much per se - they were based very much on BR's developmental work and BR would have achieved much the same.

    It was privatisation and Railtrack which seriously endangered safety by letting maintenance run down so far. It was nationalisation which rescued the infrastructure. In some ways the railways still haven't returned to BR standards, for instance in economics of electrification, or in the very simple matter of actually having operational flexibility to have and to run spare coaches or even spare trains.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,409
    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    CatMan said:

    Dialup said:

    Dialup said:

    Let us be a proud self-governing nation.

    That can run its own services rather than paying the Germans to do it for us.

    That might be a fruitful line for Keir Starmer to take: "End French and German ownership of our public services!"
    William I have been saying it for years, this would be a great line for SKS to take. The politics are strong.
    It's the rare combination of being a policy that would be popular, and something the Tories wouldn't nick
    "Do you believe the French should run our railways? Rishi Sunak does."

    It writes itself.
    The railways, though, do seem to be rather better than they were. So I'm not sure any of us should be complaining.

    Although they did do better adverts in the 1980s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEYQROkuuOU
    I don't know, my train was 45 minutes late on Tuesday and cost £60 for a return, is that better than it was in the past? Really?
    Did you actually take trains in the past?

    They were fearsomely expensive, they were dirty and they were unreliable.

    But you know what. Don't take my word for it. Let's simply look at the number of rail passenger journeys:


    Do you have the graph for total state subsidy per passenger journey? I know, both stats are functions of a variable with a very tailed distribution, but even so ...
    Here's the total subsidy from Wikipedia:



    When you combine inflation, economic growth and increased number of journeys, it is is incredibly obvious that subsidies have declined massively in real terms.
    Let's put this in context for a second.

    In 1990, the UK government spent £200bn. And of this, about £2.5bn was on British Rail. That's 1.25% of government spending.


    In 2019, total government spending was £842bn. Of which £7bn was on rail subsidies (including HS2). WHich is 0.8% of spending.

    And, of course, we get twice as many journeys for our money.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,334
    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    CatMan said:

    Dialup said:

    Dialup said:

    Let us be a proud self-governing nation.

    That can run its own services rather than paying the Germans to do it for us.

    That might be a fruitful line for Keir Starmer to take: "End French and German ownership of our public services!"
    William I have been saying it for years, this would be a great line for SKS to take. The politics are strong.
    It's the rare combination of being a policy that would be popular, and something the Tories wouldn't nick
    "Do you believe the French should run our railways? Rishi Sunak does."

    It writes itself.
    The railways, though, do seem to be rather better than they were. So I'm not sure any of us should be complaining.

    Although they did do better adverts in the 1980s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEYQROkuuOU
    I don't know, my train was 45 minutes late on Tuesday and cost £60 for a return, is that better than it was in the past? Really?
    Did you actually take trains in the past?

    They were fearsomely expensive, they were dirty and they were unreliable.

    But you know what. Don't take my word for it. Let's simply look at the number of rail passenger journeys:


    Do you have the graph for total state subsidy per passenger journey? I know, both stats are functions of a variable with a very tailed distribution, but even so ...
    Here's the total subsidy from Wikipedia:



    When you combine inflation, economic growth and increased number of journeys, it is is incredibly obvious that subsidies have declined massively in real terms.
    And remember that those recent figures include massive infrastructure costs for HS2 and Crossrail.

    The simple reality is we don’t build / improve enough new projects, even Paris had signs for this new residential development is on the new metro line (15).
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,409
    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    If the railways are so good, why is subsidy at its highest level ever? Why are we subsidising the French Government?

    I don't know if you heard of the Covid-19 pandemic? Apparently it dramatically cut travel down.

    And, to answer your question, if it costs less to have SNCF run our railways, and they do it better, then you are an idiot to want to change it for flag waving reasons.
    I want to run our railways here and not have the French do it because I think we could do it better than the French do. But the Tories believe that we're incapable of doing so.

    The current model is broken, laughably so. The companies have all gone or are going, bust.
    So, shareholder losses have paid for our railways? You should be overjoyed.
  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561
    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    If the railways are so good, why is subsidy at its highest level ever? Why are we subsidising the French Government?

    I don't know if you heard of the Covid-19 pandemic? Apparently it dramatically cut travel down.

    And, to answer your question, if it costs less to have SNCF run our railways, and they do it better, then you are an idiot to want to change it for flag waving reasons.
    I want to run our railways here and not have the French do it because I think we could do it better than the French do. But the Tories believe that we're incapable of doing so.

    The current model is broken, laughably so. The companies have all gone or are going, bust.
    So, shareholder losses have paid for our railways? You should be overjoyed.
    Do you accept a model that keeps failing is in need of overhaul or not.
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,395
    Dialup said:

    eek said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Those who look upon the British Rail age with anything other than utter horror are deluding themselves.

    45 minute delay and £60 for the privilege, ROFL you are deluded!

    Nationalising the railways would not return us to BR days. Unless you think LNER today is like British Rail
    Have you claimed your £30 refund yet - it’s nationwide but this is the first site that had the time boundaries and refund levels clearly detailed https://www.scotrail.co.uk/plan-your-journey/our-delay-repay-guarantee
    I have automatic delay repay so it does it for me. But thanks :)
    So you effectively got paid forty quid an hour for doing nothing?
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,149
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    CatMan said:

    Dialup said:

    Dialup said:

    Let us be a proud self-governing nation.

    That can run its own services rather than paying the Germans to do it for us.

    That might be a fruitful line for Keir Starmer to take: "End French and German ownership of our public services!"
    William I have been saying it for years, this would be a great line for SKS to take. The politics are strong.
    It's the rare combination of being a policy that would be popular, and something the Tories wouldn't nick
    "Do you believe the French should run our railways? Rishi Sunak does."

    It writes itself.
    The railways, though, do seem to be rather better than they were. So I'm not sure any of us should be complaining.

    Although they did do better adverts in the 1980s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEYQROkuuOU
    I don't know, my train was 45 minutes late on Tuesday and cost £60 for a return, is that better than it was in the past? Really?
    Did you actually take trains in the past?

    They were fearsomely expensive, they were dirty and they were unreliable.

    But you know what. Don't take my word for it. Let's simply look at the number of rail passenger journeys:


    Do you have the graph for total state subsidy per passenger journey? I know, both stats are functions of a variable with a very tailed distribution, but even so ...
    Here's the total subsidy from Wikipedia:



    When you combine inflation, economic growth and increased number of journeys, it is is incredibly obvious that subsidies have declined massively in real terms.
    Let's put this in context for a second.

    In 1990, the UK government spent £200bn. And of this, about £2.5bn was on British Rail. That's 1.25% of government spending.


    In 2019, total government spending was £842bn. Of which £7bn was on rail subsidies (including HS2). WHich is 0.8% of spending.

    And, of course, we get twice as many journeys for our money.
    And public transport has a direct positive impact on employment and GDP.

    Which brings us on to Buses. Always the bridesmaid. Evidence suggests the best value for money of any public transport subsidy, though unglamorous. Easily electrified, cheap, and social benefits across society.

    It’s one of the things London does right. And is funded properly for. Replicate TFL’s operating model (even without the tube) across the country and you’ve got a decent public transit infrastructure.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,138
    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    CatMan said:

    Dialup said:

    Dialup said:

    Let us be a proud self-governing nation.

    That can run its own services rather than paying the Germans to do it for us.

    That might be a fruitful line for Keir Starmer to take: "End French and German ownership of our public services!"
    William I have been saying it for years, this would be a great line for SKS to take. The politics are strong.
    It's the rare combination of being a policy that would be popular, and something the Tories wouldn't nick
    "Do you believe the French should run our railways? Rishi Sunak does."

    It writes itself.
    The railways, though, do seem to be rather better than they were. So I'm not sure any of us should be complaining.

    Although they did do better adverts in the 1980s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEYQROkuuOU
    I don't know, my train was 45 minutes late on Tuesday and cost £60 for a return, is that better than it was in the past? Really?
    Did you actually take trains in the past?

    They were fearsomely expensive, they were dirty and they were unreliable.

    But you know what. Don't take my word for it. Let's simply look at the number of rail passenger journeys:


    What do you think this proves?

    Do you think the perceived quality of the services is the main? only? driver of passenger numbers?
    Do you think that other factors might be at play? Some off the top of my head: increased population, increased house prices forcing changes to commuting habits, changes to the work done by women (increased number of working days, better career options than before), people switching jobs more frequently (and therefore more likely to choose commuting over moving closer to work).

    I could go on, and these are all speculative. But throwing a graph out there and saying "more passengers; they must be happier" is a level of naivete that I find touching.
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,193
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Jonathan said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Radicals: Thatcher, Blair, Brown
    Conservatives: May, Cameron, Major
    Populists: Johnson, Truss
    Managers: Sunak, Callaghan

    Hard to say what various LoO might be or might have become once in office. Corbyn liked to think of himself as radical, but was very conservative albeit from an old skool left wing perspective.

    Hmm... For a "populist" Truss was remarkably unpopular... 😂
    You can be a crap populist. Boris ended up pretty unpopular.
    He ended up unpopular but for most of his political career he was popular. I can't think of one moment where Truss has been popular... She just always came across as being as nutty as a fruitcake lol...
    Truss was prepared to be unpopular; she said so many times - presumably her idea was that when her policies resulted in economic growth, she would become popular enough to win a GE on her record. That was always wildly ambitious, and perhaps to even attempt it was nutty, though I find it faintly heroic. I'm not sure why it's making you 'lol' so much though, given that she's been replaced by someone who isn't trying to make the economy grow at all (the opposite seems to be the case, unless he's just plain thick as shit), and frankly doesn't seem to be trying to make a decent fist of the General Election either.
    I'm sorry - I can't help being curious, because you seem to be pretty much the only person on earth who can't see what an unmitigated disaster Liz Truss was.

    Please relieve my curiosity and tell me whether it's a sexual thing or what?
    Liz, despite being loony, got one big thing right.
    Britain needs to grow.

    This sounds incredibly obvious, but it seems that it’s a truth that evades almost all of the governing party and likely most of the Opposition.
    Right. That would be why economic growth is the unquestioned mantra of every elected politician in this country.
    It really isn’t.
    It is so.
    Green Party is a sufficient counterexample, in at least one important sense of 'economic growth' - which they do question, at least in its nature.

    Edit: and add the Scottish Green Party, too. That's two parties.
    Do the Scottish Greens actually care about anything other than gender?
    Presumably not since it is that issue, in part, which has led to them criticising the English and Welsh Greens. Who I'm sure are just hard right troglydites or something.
    Weirdly obsessed by the environment, that sort of thing.
    They've hit on a winning formula - tie it to NIMYism - they could sweep a lot more councils

    The Green uprisings in Mid Suffolk and East Herts were both about assiduous campaigning against development, in areas where the Lib Dems weren't already strong. In the latter case it's actually evident from the changed electoral map:

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1654834401149337600

    In the south of the district, where a number of despised new developments have recently been proposed or approved, the Greens swept the board. Further north, right out in the sticks where no such development is in the works, they made no net progress at all.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,580

    Tim S said:"Yes, one area where we can diverge is in not banning things that certain European countries have irrational hang ups about.

    Unfortunately that won’t work for GM crops which are one of the most irrationally feared phenomena of all, because we need access to EU agri markets."

    It's been a few years, but, if I recall correctly, some Europeans were objecting to US food donated to starving Africans, because the Africans might plant some of the GMO grains, rather than eating them.

    From what I can tell, Green superstition has done even more damage to Europe than the US. And terrible damage to some developing nations. For example, the fight against "golden" rice.

    You should read Seed Capital.

    Monsanto behaved despicably. GE food can work very well - GMO is less obvious. But there’s a reason it has a bad name.
    I recall a sci-fi show with a dystopic corporation run future, and one of the evil corporations was called Sonmanto which produced agricultural products. It was so subtle I almost missed it.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,384
    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    CatMan said:

    Dialup said:

    Dialup said:

    Let us be a proud self-governing nation.

    That can run its own services rather than paying the Germans to do it for us.

    That might be a fruitful line for Keir Starmer to take: "End French and German ownership of our public services!"
    William I have been saying it for years, this would be a great line for SKS to take. The politics are strong.
    It's the rare combination of being a policy that would be popular, and something the Tories wouldn't nick
    "Do you believe the French should run our railways? Rishi Sunak does."

    It writes itself.
    The railways, though, do seem to be rather better than they were. So I'm not sure any of us should be complaining.

    Although they did do better adverts in the 1980s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEYQROkuuOU
    I don't know, my train was 45 minutes late on Tuesday and cost £60 for a return, is that better than it was in the past? Really?
    Did you actually take trains in the past?

    They were fearsomely expensive, they were dirty and they were unreliable.

    But you know what. Don't take my word for it. Let's simply look at the number of rail passenger journeys:


    Do you have the graph for total state subsidy per passenger journey? I know, both stats are functions of a variable with a very tailed distribution, but even so ...
    Here's the total subsidy from Wikipedia:



    When you combine inflation, economic growth and increased number of journeys, it is is incredibly obvious that subsidies have declined massively in real terms.
    Mm, thanks. But I don't recall inflation being 700% between 1996 and 2006 ... also it omits the pre-82 years.

    The total number of journeys is a tricky thing - it's not like cars, there is a limit to how many one can cram into a train, and current design certainly favours that - the revised 125s are noticeably less humane than the old ones. So there is a somewhat elastic relationship between passengers and costs.

    And plainly there is some reason why renationalisation is necessary - LNER, Scotrail, now TransPennine (which were cencelling up to a quarter of trains ...).
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,138

    Dialup said:

    eek said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Those who look upon the British Rail age with anything other than utter horror are deluding themselves.

    45 minute delay and £60 for the privilege, ROFL you are deluded!

    Nationalising the railways would not return us to BR days. Unless you think LNER today is like British Rail
    Have you claimed your £30 refund yet - it’s nationwide but this is the first site that had the time boundaries and refund levels clearly detailed https://www.scotrail.co.uk/plan-your-journey/our-delay-repay-guarantee
    I have automatic delay repay so it does it for me. But thanks :)
    So you effectively got paid forty quid an hour for doing nothing?
    He didn't get paid, he got a journey took longer and was cheaper than it should have been.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,409
    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    If the railways are so good, why is subsidy at its highest level ever? Why are we subsidising the French Government?

    I don't know if you heard of the Covid-19 pandemic? Apparently it dramatically cut travel down.

    And, to answer your question, if it costs less to have SNCF run our railways, and they do it better, then you are an idiot to want to change it for flag waving reasons.
    I want to run our railways here and not have the French do it because I think we could do it better than the French do. But the Tories believe that we're incapable of doing so.

    The current model is broken, laughably so. The companies have all gone or are going, bust.
    So, shareholder losses have paid for our railways? You should be overjoyed.
    Do you accept a model that keeps failing is in need of overhaul or not.
    That's like saying: tech companies keep failing, we need to change the model.

    Can I tell you a secret: economic growth is correlated with business failure. The more business failure there, is the more economic growth.
  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561
    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    If the railways are so good, why is subsidy at its highest level ever? Why are we subsidising the French Government?

    I don't know if you heard of the Covid-19 pandemic? Apparently it dramatically cut travel down.

    And, to answer your question, if it costs less to have SNCF run our railways, and they do it better, then you are an idiot to want to change it for flag waving reasons.
    I want to run our railways here and not have the French do it because I think we could do it better than the French do. But the Tories believe that we're incapable of doing so.

    The current model is broken, laughably so. The companies have all gone or are going, bust.
    So, shareholder losses have paid for our railways? You should be overjoyed.
    Do you accept a model that keeps failing is in need of overhaul or not.
    That's like saying: tech companies keep failing, we need to change the model.

    Can I tell you a secret: economic growth is correlated with business failure. The more business failure there, is the more economic growth.
    Then why don't we let the companies go bust rather than bailing them out.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,149
    Leaving the posh wine slopes of the Cote de Beaune and slightly less posh ones of the châlonnaise and returning to the Mâconnais is like a more viticultural version of leaving the Cotswolds and crossing the Malverns into Herefordshire. One of France’s great landscapes.



    Should be an obligatory stop for anyone driving down to the South of France.
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,395
    edited May 2023
    Farooq said:

    Dialup said:

    eek said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Those who look upon the British Rail age with anything other than utter horror are deluding themselves.

    45 minute delay and £60 for the privilege, ROFL you are deluded!

    Nationalising the railways would not return us to BR days. Unless you think LNER today is like British Rail
    Have you claimed your £30 refund yet - it’s nationwide but this is the first site that had the time boundaries and refund levels clearly detailed https://www.scotrail.co.uk/plan-your-journey/our-delay-repay-guarantee
    I have automatic delay repay so it does it for me. But thanks :)
    So you effectively got paid forty quid an hour for doing nothing?
    He didn't get paid, he got a journey took longer and was cheaper than it should have been.
    Thank goodness you’re here to explain

    I’d take £30 quid off for a 45 minute wait any day of the week

    But then I’m actually poor
  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561


    Tech bro Rishi
  • Options
    CatManCatMan Posts: 2,875
    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    CatMan said:

    Dialup said:

    Dialup said:

    Let us be a proud self-governing nation.

    That can run its own services rather than paying the Germans to do it for us.

    That might be a fruitful line for Keir Starmer to take: "End French and German ownership of our public services!"
    William I have been saying it for years, this would be a great line for SKS to take. The politics are strong.
    It's the rare combination of being a policy that would be popular, and something the Tories wouldn't nick
    "Do you believe the French should run our railways? Rishi Sunak does."

    It writes itself.
    The railways, though, do seem to be rather better than they were. So I'm not sure any of us should be complaining.

    Although they did do better adverts in the 1980s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEYQROkuuOU
    I don't know, my train was 45 minutes late on Tuesday and cost £60 for a return, is that better than it was in the past? Really?
    Did you actually take trains in the past?

    They were fearsomely expensive, they were dirty and they were unreliable.

    But you know what. Don't take my word for it. Let's simply look at the number of rail passenger journeys:


    What do you think this proves?

    Do you think the perceived quality of the services is the main? only? driver of passenger numbers?
    Do you think that other factors might be at play? Some off the top of my head: increased population, increased house prices forcing changes to commuting habits, changes to the work done by women (increased number of working days, better career options than before), people switching jobs more frequently (and therefore more likely to choose commuting over moving closer to work).

    I could go on, and these are all speculative. But throwing a graph out there and saying "more passengers; they must be happier" is a level of naivete that I find touching.
    I think I read somewhere that there was a similar rise in passenger numbers in N.Ireland, despite railways not being privatized there. So that would suggest the rise wasn't due to that.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,027

    NEW THREAD

  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,921
    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    CatMan said:

    Dialup said:

    Dialup said:

    Let us be a proud self-governing nation.

    That can run its own services rather than paying the Germans to do it for us.

    That might be a fruitful line for Keir Starmer to take: "End French and German ownership of our public services!"
    William I have been saying it for years, this would be a great line for SKS to take. The politics are strong.
    It's the rare combination of being a policy that would be popular, and something the Tories wouldn't nick
    "Do you believe the French should run our railways? Rishi Sunak does."

    It writes itself.
    The railways, though, do seem to be rather better than they were. So I'm not sure any of us should be complaining.

    Although they did do better adverts in the 1980s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEYQROkuuOU
    I don't know, my train was 45 minutes late on Tuesday and cost £60 for a return, is that better than it was in the past? Really?
    Did you actually take trains in the past?

    They were fearsomely expensive, they were dirty and they were unreliable.

    But you know what. Don't take my word for it. Let's simply look at the number of rail passenger journeys:


    Have you actually taken a Transpenine Express train recently? Or rather - not taken it from your starting point to your end point somewhat near the time stated in the timetable? At least the old British Rail trains did run.

    The TPE trick is to run, say, the Manchester Airport to Edinburgh service only far as Bolton, which allows them to claim on time service for the stats. This is in addition to the many services they admit to cancelling. Arriva is only better in comparison to that non-service benchmark and you have take out a second mortgage for a journey you don't have any confidence they will actually take you on.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,993
    Early evening all :)

    This CDO event sounds like the American CPAC events where each speaker tries to convince a sceptical audience they are the most Conservative (or indeed conservative).

    The last time Conservative members had a vote they inflicted Liz Truss on the country (sorry @Luckyguy1983) - Arthur Balfour's famous quote springs to mind.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,458
    What is certainly clear is that while Sunak's government is now as unpopular as Major's was in the mid 1990s, Starmer is not seen as as credible a potential PM as Blair was by swing voters either. Hence 24% of 2019 Conservative voters are now DK with only 16% switching to Labour and a further 8% RefUK. While it is unlikely Sunak can pull off a Major 1992 shock narrow re election, Starmer is still seen as more credible a PM than Kinnock, Sunak could still get a hung parliament if he wins back DKs and defectors to RefUK by, for example, controlling the boats across the channel and proposing to raise the threshold for IHT to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.

    If Sunak does close the gap we would certainly be heading for a hung parliament in England at least, leaving Starmer needing Labour to increase its lead in Welsh MPs and make gains from the SNP to take an overall UK majority. Remember Blair was the only incoming Labour PM to win a majority of English seats in a general election in 1997 since Attlee in 1945. Wilson in 1964 and February 1974 only won a UK majority with Scottish and Welsh MPs. Home and Heath won most seats in England. Starmer may therefore end up more Wilson than Blair and Sunak more Home 1964 than Major 1997

  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,243
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    CatMan said:

    Dialup said:

    Dialup said:

    Let us be a proud self-governing nation.

    That can run its own services rather than paying the Germans to do it for us.

    That might be a fruitful line for Keir Starmer to take: "End French and German ownership of our public services!"
    William I have been saying it for years, this would be a great line for SKS to take. The politics are strong.
    It's the rare combination of being a policy that would be popular, and something the Tories wouldn't nick
    "Do you believe the French should run our railways? Rishi Sunak does."

    It writes itself.
    The railways, though, do seem to be rather better than they were. So I'm not sure any of us should be complaining.

    Although they did do better adverts in the 1980s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEYQROkuuOU
    I don't know, my train was 45 minutes late on Tuesday and cost £60 for a return, is that better than it was in the past? Really?
    Did you actually take trains in the past?

    They were fearsomely expensive, they were dirty and they were unreliable.

    But you know what. Don't take my word for it. Let's simply look at the number of rail passenger journeys:


    Do you have the graph for total state subsidy per passenger journey? I know, both stats are functions of a variable with a very tailed distribution, but even so ...
    Here's the total subsidy from Wikipedia:



    When you combine inflation, economic growth and increased number of journeys, it is is incredibly obvious that subsidies have declined massively in real terms.
    Let's put this in context for a second.

    In 1990, the UK government spent £200bn. And of this, about £2.5bn was on British Rail. That's 1.25% of government spending.


    In 2019, total government spending was £842bn. Of which £7bn was on rail subsidies (including HS2). WHich is 0.8% of spending.

    And, of course, we get twice as many journeys for our money.
    There's a reason why British Rail was referred to so often in jokes and sarcasm.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,458

    algarkirk said:

    I’m fairly agnostic about Eurovision (which may encourage public tarring and feathering in the current climate), but is the BBC in danger of frotting itself into a seizure over the event? It’s fcuking relentless.

    Yes. R4 Today is going on about it relentlessly, and has done for some time. I wonder what proportion of the R4 audience (average age 103) follow this sub ironic eurotrash?

    77% care not very much or at all
    19% care a great deal or a fair amount

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1656670495574745095?t=gFlheFuFbj-EzboXeQdfsQ&s=19
    So fewer care about Eurovision than the Coronation then
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,569
    StillWaters - Thank you for the book recommendation. And, in return, I'll give you one: Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never: Why enviromental alarmism hurts us all".
    https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/apocalypse-never-michael-shellenberger/1134858807?ean=9780063001695

    rcs1000, and anyone else interested in the subject, can find much in there about California politics. (I haven't read Shellenberger's book on San Francisco.)
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,458
    edited May 2023

    algarkirk said:

    I’m fairly agnostic about Eurovision (which may encourage public tarring and feathering in the current climate), but is the BBC in danger of frotting itself into a seizure over the event? It’s fcuking relentless.

    Yes. R4 Today is going on about it relentlessly, and has done for some time. I wonder what proportion of the R4 audience (average age 103) follow this sub ironic eurotrash?

    77% care not very much or at all
    19% care a great deal or a fair amount

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1656670495574745095?t=gFlheFuFbj-EzboXeQdfsQ&s=19
    For comparison, the YouGov polling on the coronation was

    A great deal: 11%
    A fair amount: 24%
    Not very much: 31%
    Not at all: 31%

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1654147039054135297
    I care more about Eurovision than I do about the coronation.

    Interesting that countries have and look to leave the monarchy but more nations want to join Eurovision.
    Some of the most successful nations in producing Eurovision winners eg Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden are constitutional monarchies like us, as is recent Eurovision joiner Australia
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,472
    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Dialup said:

    CatMan said:

    Dialup said:

    Dialup said:

    Let us be a proud self-governing nation.

    That can run its own services rather than paying the Germans to do it for us.

    That might be a fruitful line for Keir Starmer to take: "End French and German ownership of our public services!"
    William I have been saying it for years, this would be a great line for SKS to take. The politics are strong.
    It's the rare combination of being a policy that would be popular, and something the Tories wouldn't nick
    "Do you believe the French should run our railways? Rishi Sunak does."

    It writes itself.
    The railways, though, do seem to be rather better than they were. So I'm not sure any of us should be complaining.

    Although they did do better adverts in the 1980s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEYQROkuuOU
    I don't know, my train was 45 minutes late on Tuesday and cost £60 for a return, is that better than it was in the past? Really?
    Did you actually take trains in the past?

    They were fearsomely expensive, they were dirty and they were unreliable.

    But you know what. Don't take my word for it. Let's simply look at the number of rail passenger journeys:


    Do you have the graph for total state subsidy per passenger journey? I know, both stats are functions of a variable with a very tailed distribution, but even so ...
    Here's the total subsidy from Wikipedia:



    When you combine inflation, economic growth and increased number of journeys, it is is incredibly obvious that subsidies have declined massively in real terms.
    Mm, thanks. But I don't recall inflation being 700% between 1996 and 2006 ... also it omits the pre-82 years.

    The total number of journeys is a tricky thing - it's not like cars, there is a limit to how many one can cram into a train, and current design certainly favours that - the revised 125s are noticeably less humane than the old ones. So there is a somewhat elastic relationship between passengers and costs.

    And plainly there is some reason why renationalisation is necessary - LNER, Scotrail, now TransPennine (which were cencelling up to a quarter of trains ...).
    That chart also includes enhancements, including Crossrail and HS2. The number of network enhancements going on are far and above anything BR did post-1960s.

    (Railway infrastructure has three main areas: Maintenance (keeping the current equipment going); Renewals (renewing life-expired infrastructure), and Enhancements (improvements to the network). Enhancements have been a few billion a year for many years now.)
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,273
    The Guardian has just discovered that tuition fees are a capped graduate tax:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/may/13/nurses-teachers-student-loan-reforms-biggest-squeeze
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,138

    Farooq said:

    Dialup said:

    eek said:

    Dialup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Those who look upon the British Rail age with anything other than utter horror are deluding themselves.

    45 minute delay and £60 for the privilege, ROFL you are deluded!

    Nationalising the railways would not return us to BR days. Unless you think LNER today is like British Rail
    Have you claimed your £30 refund yet - it’s nationwide but this is the first site that had the time boundaries and refund levels clearly detailed https://www.scotrail.co.uk/plan-your-journey/our-delay-repay-guarantee
    I have automatic delay repay so it does it for me. But thanks :)
    So you effectively got paid forty quid an hour for doing nothing?
    He didn't get paid, he got a journey took longer and was cheaper than it should have been.
    Thank goodness you’re here to explain

    I’d take £30 quid off for a 45 minute wait any day of the week

    But then I’m actually poor
    I'd take an actual rail service in my constituency. There's not a mile of track here.
This discussion has been closed.