The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Change from 10th June Projection) :
Con 312 (-3) .. Lab 274 (+3) .. LibDem 32 (+1) .. SNP 8 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 2 (-1) .. Respect 0 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 14 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - TCTC Pudsey - TCTC Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - Likely LibDem Hold Ipswich - TCTC Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold Enfield - TCTC (From Likely Con Hold) Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Likely Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Likely Con Hold Ochill and South Perthshire - TCTC
Changes From 10th June - Enfield moves from Likely Con Hold to TCTC.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 .......................................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
I'd expect Pudsey to go to Labour - how come you have it TCTC ?
In simple terms it's what the data from my ARSE reflects, in the same fashion and method that have proved so accurate in the past.
If I might nudge you to recall this is a projection for May 2015 not now as polls and other projections reflect.
In the event of JackW’s ARSE coming true ....and yes I know it’s an assessment of “now” not a projection ..... there’s no way I can see the LD’s getting tied up with the Tories again.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Change from 10th June Projection) :
Con 312 (-3) .. Lab 274 (+3) .. LibDem 32 (+1) .. SNP 8 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 2 (-1) .. Respect 0 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 14 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - TCTC Pudsey - TCTC Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - Likely LibDem Hold Ipswich - TCTC Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold Enfield - TCTC (From Likely Con Hold) Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Likely Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Likely Con Hold Ochill and South Perthshire - TCTC
Changes From 10th June - Enfield moves from Likely Con Hold to TCTC.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 .......................................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
I'd expect Pudsey to go to Labour - how come you have it TCTC ?
In simple terms it's what the data from my ARSE reflects, in the same fashion and method that have proved so accurate in the past.
If I might nudge you to recall this is a projection for May 2015 not now as polls and other projections reflect.
Actually in those Fabian tables it stayed Blue so you could well be right.
There is no way that LDs will do a S&C deal with LAB particularly if they have most seats on fewer votes.
Very interesting post, Mike.
As I've said in the past, there is a significant risk that the next GE may end up with a result where no stable government can be formed. The financial markets haven't yet woken up to this risk - in the past few months there have an increasing number of articles and analysts' research notes pointing to the political danger of GE2015, but almost always only in the context of how much of a danger Ed Miliband poses to our prosperity, not the danger of no effective government at all.
Back to the polls for us if this occurs ?
Would the DUP be happy working with Mr Miliband provided they get enough pork in their barrel do you think ?
In the event of JackW’s ARSE coming true ....and yes I know it’s an assessment of “now” not a projection ..... there’s no way I can see the LD’s getting tied up with the Tories again.
In the end as we all know it's a numbers game but for the sake of debate let's agree with 10 seats or so of my latest ARSE projection that the Con/LibDem total is 334/354 and a clear working majority.
Why change horses ?
What nationally realistically are the LIbDems for if not to be part of government and influencing events. It has been their essential strategy for decades and then suddenly at half time they decide it's all too difficult ?!?
The strategy for the LibDems needs to be "we put the nation first" - It isn't a bad offering to place before the voters.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Change from 10th June Projection) :
Con 312 (-3) .. Lab 274 (+3) .. LibDem 32 (+1) .. SNP 8 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 2 (-1) .. Respect 0 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Conservatives 14 seats short of a majority ......................................................................................
"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :
Bury North - TCTC Pudsey - TCTC Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain Cambridge - Likely LibDem Hold Ipswich - TCTC Watford - TCTC Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold Enfield - TCTC (From Likely Con Hold) Cornwall North - TCTC Great Yarmouth - Likely Con Hold Vale of Glamorgan - Likely Con Hold Ochill and South Perthshire - TCTC
Changes From 10th June - Enfield moves from Likely Con Hold to TCTC.
TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes Gain/Hold - Over 2500 .......................................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
I'd expect Pudsey to go to Labour - how come you have it TCTC ?
In simple terms it's what the data from my ARSE reflects, in the same fashion and method that have proved so accurate in the past.
If I might nudge you to recall this is a projection for May 2015 not now as polls and other projections reflect.
Actually in those Fabian tables it stayed Blue so you could well be right.
Just put £15 on Labour Reading West @ 11-4 - Had a look back at previous elections and it does seem to be very swingy. In fact in 2001 you could regard it as a safe seat for Labour !
Those local election results do seem to be very good for Labour too there.
Pulpstar - just to warn you that those Fabian figures are based only on the Reading wards of Reading West and exclude the West Berkshire wards, which did not vote this year. The West Berks wards are much more friendly to the Tories. Personally I don't see Miliband being able to win over enough "Blair Tories" to take this back.
No. All Labour are saying is that DOR be allowed to bid for franchises as they come up. They already run ECML successfully. Meanwhile, that well-known lefty Boris is enthusiastically renationalising the West Anglia Line from Liverpool St to Enfield/Chingford.
Reds under the bed everywhere these days it seems!!!
- A better safety record - A better punctuality record - Nicer trains - More passengers - More investment - Lower subsidy per passenger mile
What's not to like? Those arguing for nationalisation are basically arguing for wealthy come county commuters to be subsidised by the taxpayer so they can live more affordably in the suburbs.
There is no way that LDs will do a S&C deal with LAB particularly if they have most seats on fewer votes.
Very interesting post, Mike.
As I've said in the past, there is a significant risk that the next GE may end up with a result where no stable government can be formed. The financial markets haven't yet woken up to this risk - in the past few months there have an increasing number of articles and analysts' research notes pointing to the political danger of GE2015, but almost always only in the context of how much of a danger Ed Miliband poses to our prosperity, not the danger of no effective government at all.
What do you think the likelihood of 2015 having two general elections is ?
See what you mean, Mr W, but I think it would be a very hard deal to negotiate. On both sides!
However, what I really hope is that neither Lab or Tories feel it appropriate to rely on the DUP!
Post election last time commentators thought the deal would be intractable, lengthy and fraught with difficulties. However as I expected both sides were extremely pragmatic and the personal relationships between the two negotiating teams were cordial.
I'm not too sure it would be much different next time, after all what's the realistic and viable alternative on those figures ?
He's something of a Labour movement icon - a bit like Thatcher for many Tories - as he's seen as having effected a lasting change in society (the NHS) as well as managing an obviously difficult situation with calm and dignity. That said, he did lose the third time round, so Miliband might need to worry about the 2025 election. :-)
In reality he was vehemently opposed by the left at the time, notably by the Tony Benn of his day, Harold Laski, but these things blur in the rosy mists of hindsight.
I was tempted to tease Luke by pointing out that Clem's first GE as leader was 1935, which saw Labour make major gains against an increasingly discredited Tory-led coalition, but still lose by a pretty clear margin. But then I thought this would annoy him, rather than make him smile.
Most of these historical comparisons are a bit silly - I tend to pay attention to the tracking data for LOTO as it's at least comparable, but I couldn't really tell you what it 'means', if anything.
Popular leaders of popular oppositions are popular, unpopular leaders of unpopular oppositions are unpopular. It's what happens in the other two cases that's a bit messy!
Just put £15 on Labour Reading West @ 11-4 - Had a look back at previous elections and it does seem to be very swingy. In fact in 2001 you could regard it as a safe seat for Labour !
Those local election results do seem to be very good for Labour too there.
Pulpstar - just to warn you that those Fabian figures are based only on the Reading wards of Reading West and exclude the West Berkshire wards, which did not vote this year. The West Berks wards are much more friendly to the Tories. Personally I don't see Miliband being able to win over enough "Blair Tories" to take this back.
What do you think the likelihood of 2015 having two general elections is ?
Very hard to say, there are lots of uncertainties. First of all there would to be a hung parliament (say 50% chance), and then we'd have to guess what the LibDems, or possibly the DUP, would do. I take Jack's point about why the LibDems should want to continue the coalition, but, even if the arithmetic makes this possible, it's not clear to me that the LibDem party would accept even if the top echelons wanted to. Equally Cameron would have an uphill struggle selling another coalition to the Conservative Party. Alternatively, we could end up with a situation where neither of Con+LD or Lab+LD has a majority, or we could end up with Lab+LD arithmetically possible. In the latter case, it's going to be a bit odd for the LibDems to enter a new coalition undoing much of what they just done, so that doesn't look an easy deal either even if Labour wanted it.
Putting all that together, the chance of a minority government must be fairly high - maybe 20% at a guess?
I don't think a minority government would be at all stable, but that doesn't mean it would collapse in 2015; it might struggle on in increasing chaos until the other parties jointly decided it was in their interests to switch off the life-support machine. When that moment would come is anyone's guess.
See what you mean, Mr W, but I think it would be a very hard deal to negotiate. On both sides!
However, what I really hope is that neither Lab or Tories feel it appropriate to rely on the DUP!
Post election last time commentators thought the deal would be intractable, lengthy and fraught with difficulties. However as I expected both sides were extremely pragmatic and the personal relationships between the two negotiating teams were cordial.
I'm not too sure it would be much different next time, after all what's the realistic and viable alternative on those figures ?
Agree, Mr (or should it be Sir?) W on both counts. However, I suspect that the remaining LD’s would want a harder bargain this time, and a segment of the Tories would be even more intractable!
Most of these historical comparisons are a bit silly - I tend to pay attention to the tracking data for LOTO as it's at least comparable, but I couldn't really tell you what it 'means', if anything.
Popular leaders of popular oppositions are popular, unpopular leaders of unpopular oppositions are unpopular. It's what happens in the other two cases that's a bit messy!
Hi Hopi - yes, there's an apolitical statistical point that we wouldn't dream of drawing any conclusions about something complex for which we only had a dozen or so postwar data points. The current position is actually nothing like anything we've experienced - coalition, strong fourth party, etc. - and history doesn't tell us anything very useful at all.
Hi Hopi - yes, there's an apolitical statistical point that we wouldn't dream of drawing any conclusions about something complex for which we only had a dozen or so postwar data points. The current position is actually nothing like anything we've experienced - coalition, strong fourth party, etc. - and history doesn't tell us anything very useful at all.
Not quite - it tells us one very, very useful thing, namely that opinions polls this far out are a poor predictor of the final result, a conclusion which is especially robust because you reach the same conclusion looking at other countries.
The problem about some kind of coalition next time is that Nick Clegg´s decision would not be enough. Any agreement for Lib Dem support would also have to win the support of a Lib Dem Conference before it could go ahead. I feel this would be somewhat unlikely.
Personally, I would be opposed to any kind of coalition, and also to informal support arrangements. Unless there were considerable inducement, of course, such as the other party agreeing to implement the entire Lib Dem manifesto as government policy!
Reply to Jack´s comment:
Post election last time commentators thought the deal would be intractable, lengthy and fraught with difficulties. However as I expected both sides were extremely pragmatic and the personal relationships between the two negotiating teams were cordial.
I'm not too sure it would be much different next time, after all what's the realistic and viable alternative on those figures ?
- A better safety record - A better punctuality record - Nicer trains - More passengers - More investment - Lower subsidy per passenger mile
What's not to like? Those arguing for nationalisation are basically arguing for wealthy come county commuters to be subsidised by the taxpayer so they can live more affordably in the suburbs.
You don't understand the system at all, that is clear. The public subsidy now is far higher than under BR, franchising is already funded by general taxation. The difference is that we privatise the gains and socialise the losses. As Max points out below.
@TSE so it should be, given the huge hike in the public subsidy!
See what you mean, Mr W, but I think it would be a very hard deal to negotiate. On both sides!
However, what I really hope is that neither Lab or Tories feel it appropriate to rely on the DUP!
Post election last time commentators thought the deal would be intractable, lengthy and fraught with difficulties. However as I expected both sides were extremely pragmatic and the personal relationships between the two negotiating teams were cordial.
I'm not too sure it would be much different next time, after all what's the realistic and viable alternative on those figures ?
Agree, Mr (or should it be Sir?) W on both counts. However, I suspect that the remaining LD’s would want a harder bargain this time, and a segment of the Tories would be even more intractable!
I'm not a baronet or knight. Jack is fine.
I don't doubt the usual suspects will huff, puff and vent beautifully for the media but will the Conservatives in particular want a weak minority administration limping from week to week ? - I doubt it.
And whisper it quietly but both sides have actually got on rather well in government knowing that pragmatically there wasn't much option and they each got decent chunks of what they wanted.
Hmm... I wonder if the 2015 GE results may well look like the 2005 ones. Switch around some UKIP/LD but the general Conservative/Labour battle in England.
The problem about some kind of coalition next time is that Nick Clegg´s decision would not be enough. Any agreement for Lib Dem support would also have to win the support of a Lib Dem Conference before it could go ahead. I feel this would be somewhat unlikely.
Personally, I would be opposed to any kind of coalition, and also to informal support arrangements. Unless there were considerable inducement, of course, such as the other party agreeing to implement the entire Lib Dem manifesto as government policy!
Reply to Jack´s comment:
Post election last time commentators thought the deal would be intractable, lengthy and fraught with difficulties. However as I expected both sides were extremely pragmatic and the personal relationships between the two negotiating teams were cordial.
I'm not too sure it would be much different next time, after all what's the realistic and viable alternative on those figures ?
You are Michael Meadowcroft and I decline five "Focus" leaflets every week !!
Next Permanent England Test Capt: 7/4 Ian Bell, 3/1 Stuart Broad, 5 James Anderson, Matt Prior, 10 Eoin Morgan, 20 Joe Root, 33 Sam Robson.
Edit: Jimmy is 8/1 with Paddy Power.
The way Jimmy bowled yesterday afternoon, that would be akin to giving Cook the captaincy now. If Cook was old. It is why I think Cook will stay. Sacking him means surely giving it to Bell as he's the only man certain to keep his place until the next Ashes. Nobody else has any form over a decent period.
- A better safety record - A better punctuality record - Nicer trains - More passengers - More investment - Lower subsidy per passenger mile
What's not to like? Those arguing for nationalisation are basically arguing for wealthy come county commuters to be subsidised by the taxpayer so they can live more affordably in the suburbs.
- Fewer strikes - A more frequent service - Cleaner, and more comfortable trains - Better real-time information - More railway jobs - Politer staff
Those arguing for renationalisation tend to fall into three camps:
The first are the social conservatives who get sentimental about the 'British' in British Rail, and hark back to a patriotic golden age of British Railways that never really existed (Mail/Express/Hitches).
The second are socialists who have always detested privatisation, recognise that rail is one where there's still a debate and they might get a bite at it, and hope to use it as a Trojan horse to support further renationalisations (Trade Unions, Mirror, Christian Wolmar etc)
Third is the balance of the public who have convinced themselves (incorrectly) that their local rail service would be better and cheaper if the railways were again under public ownership.
Tories must be disappointed that the polling has moved against them in the past month. Hard to see why though the latest EU posturing does look faintly tragic.
Next Permanent England Test Capt: 7/4 Ian Bell, 3/1 Stuart Broad, 5 James Anderson, Matt Prior, 10 Eoin Morgan, 20 Joe Root, 33 Sam Robson.
Edit: Jimmy is 8/1 with Paddy Power.
The way Jimmy bowled yesterday afternoon, that would be akin to giving Cook the captaincy now. If Cook was old. It is why I think Cook will stay. Sacking him means surely giving it to Bell as he's the only man certain to keep his place until the next Ashes. Nobody else has any form over a decent period.
I understand that, I was thinking they may give it to the most experienced player in the team ( I know Bell has more test caps, but Jimmy's been around since 2002)
Think Bob Willis in the 80s, let Bell concentrate on his batting.
As a frequent user of rail in this country, pre and post privatisation, the changes have been undoubtedly for the better.
I think where a lot of people have issues is the prices of tickets, which compared to Europe and America, mile for mile, is a lot more expensive.
My second frequent journey is Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston, an open first class ticket costs close to £400.
Flying Manchester to London is around £100.
And that flight is an open, first class ticket, is it?
Sadly BA don't do first class on that journey.
An open standard return train ticket is close to £200
Surely a restricted standard ticket would be the fair comparison?
Only around 2-3% of passengers use such tickets, mainly business travellers. The UK has some of the most expensive tickets for 'turn-up and go' instant, long-distance travel, at peak times. However, it also has some of the cheapest for tickets booked/reserved in advance. The latter are far more heavily used than the former.
£200 is more than I'd like to pay; however, once you start adding extra journey/waiting time, parking and/or taxis to/from the airport it probably doesn't compare too unfavourably with flying. Plus, you can work through Wi-Fi and make telephone calls.
It seems to be the market operating as it should be to me.
Personally, I would be opposed to any kind of coalition, and also to informal support arrangements. Unless there were considerable inducement, of course, such as the other party agreeing to implement the entire Lib Dem manifesto as government policy!
It will never happen, imho - I fear unless the Lib Dems win a general election outright, which is unlikely, you are doomed to disappointment.
- A better safety record - A better punctuality record - Nicer trains - More passengers - More investment - Lower subsidy per passenger mile
What's not to like? Those arguing for nationalisation are basically arguing for wealthy come county commuters to be subsidised by the taxpayer so they can live more affordably in the suburbs.
You don't understand the system at all, that is clear. The public subsidy now is far higher than under BR, franchising is already funded by general taxation. The difference is that we privatise the gains and socialise the losses. As Max points out below.
@TSE so it should be, given the huge hike in the public subsidy!
There's also the issue of safety problems caused by de-nationalisation and fragmentation, and the reduction in service after Hatfield and in bad weather because the commercial companies were more worried about money (and to be fair also legal action) than service.
Far too much reliance on the bogus empiricism of SMERSH,ARSE and any number of other "systems" on this site.I am reminded of the similar snake-oil salesmen in the horse racing world selling guaranteed riches from their particular system. In today's changed political environment it might just pay to remain an eclectic contrarian.
What do you think the likelihood of 2015 having two general elections is ?
Very hard to say, there are lots of uncertainties. First of all there would to be a hung parliament (say 50% chance), and then we'd have to guess what the LibDems, or possibly the DUP, would do. I take Jack's point about why the LibDems should want to continue the coalition, but, even if the arithmetic makes this possible, it's not clear to me that the LibDem party would accept even if the top echelons wanted to. Equally Cameron would have an uphill struggle selling another coalition to the Conservative Party. Alternatively, we could end up with a situation where neither of Con+LD or Lab+LD has a majority, or we could end up with Lab+LD arithmetically possible. In the latter case, it's going to be a bit odd for the LibDems to enter a new coalition undoing much of what they just done, so that doesn't look an easy deal either even if Labour wanted it.
Putting all that together, the chance of a minority government must be fairly high - maybe 20% at a guess?
I don't think a minority government would be at all stable, but that doesn't mean it would collapse in 2015; it might struggle on in increasing chaos until the other parties jointly decided it was in their interests to switch off the life-support machine. When that moment would come is anyone's guess.
The problem with the two elections in 2015 theory is the Fixed Term Parliament Act. This effectively takes away the option that Harold Wilson had in 1974 to call a second general election in the year.
There are provisions in the act to allow a general election but that requires the cooperation of enough parties to produce a two-thirds majority agreeing to the notion. Why should they do that?
The act could be repealed but that would require enough MPs to get it though and why should opposition parties give back the power to choose election dates to the PM?
Its not different than survation's nationwide polls, LD falling 15% nationwide here 15.2% and hitting the zero bound, Tories falling 8.7 survation has them falling 10% nationwide, the only differences are that Labour is up more than the survation national figures and UKIP by less but its London (LAB rising 5.9% survation nationwide rising 2% and UKIP rising 15.4% and nationwide 20%).
The big problem for the LD is that any lower and they are going to hit the zero bound in so many seats that it will be difficult to keep up with the zulu strategy.
As for renationalising the railways, the problem is as always you can't have many train companies on the same line, in the 19th century train companies built their own lines many next to each other to compete but today you can't do that so its either a private monopoly or a public monopoly on a regional or national scale.
Since private monopolies always tend to misuse their position to increase prices beyond a reasonable point, the only solution is a public monopoly.
Far too much reliance on the bogus empiricism of SMERSH,ARSE and any number of other "systems" on this site.I am reminded of the similar snake-oil salesmen in the horse racing world selling guaranteed riches from their particular system. In today's changed political environment it might just pay to remain an eclectic contrarian.
How very dare you madam.
You have the temerity to compare untried new kids on the block to my own venerated and exquisitely formed, tried and tested ARSE.
Be gone with you, dastardly wretch and infest ConHome for a week !!
Next Permanent England Test Capt: 7/4 Ian Bell, 3/1 Stuart Broad, 5 James Anderson, Matt Prior, 10 Eoin Morgan, 20 Joe Root, 33 Sam Robson.
Edit: Jimmy is 8/1 with Paddy Power.
Brave. England have had a permanent bowling captain since Bob Willis, or, if we include the summer of 4 captains, John Emburey. Jimmy is clinging on to get Sir Ian's record and the 400 and he will hang up his boots. After Ashes 2015 I would imagine. Broad a better bet but he's a moody little Mary. Bell the continuity option, Prior the right choice. Morgan isn't an option, he's Irish and shite at test match cricket, Root isn't secure in his slot and Sam Robson is the captain after next.
Far too much reliance on the bogus empiricism of SMERSH,ARSE and any number of other "systems" on this site.I am reminded of the similar snake-oil salesmen in the horse racing world selling guaranteed riches from their particular system. In today's changed political environment it might just pay to remain an eclectic contrarian.
If you want to make money on the horses, follow @Raceclear at advised prices. You have to be quick to get on at the correct prices though.
I think paying for a tipster is probably likely to end up in a loss, unless you have an appetite for large stakes and the consequential variance - however bookies look out for each way backers where the place price should in reality be under evens but is over. Too many £25 E/W on good 4-1 -> 10-1 shots in 8 horse races and you're barred ! Martin Bishop Racing spams up my facebook alot, I've heard he is pretty awful though.
The problem with the two elections in 2015 theory is the Fixed Term Parliament Act. This effectively takes away the option that Harold Wilson had in 1974 to call a second general election in the year.
There are provisions in the act to allow a general election but that requires the cooperation of enough parties to produce a two-thirds majority agreeing to the notion. Why should they do that?
Not quite, because there are two different ways in which a general election can be held early:
- If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
- If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".
It is the first of these mechanisms, needing only 50% excluding abstentions, which in practice the opposition parties would be likely to use to kill off a minority government and provoke an election. Alternatively, the minority government could engineer a confidence motion and abstain on it (curious, but it would work).
- A better safety record - A better punctuality record - Nicer trains - More passengers - More investment - Lower subsidy per passenger mile
What's not to like? Those arguing for nationalisation are basically arguing for wealthy come county commuters to be subsidised by the taxpayer so they can live more affordably in the suburbs.
You don't understand the system at all, that is clear. The public subsidy now is far higher than under BR, franchising is already funded by general taxation. The difference is that we privatise the gains and socialise the losses. As Max points out below.
@TSE so it should be, given the huge hike in the public subsidy!
The absolute level of subsidy may have gone up, but the subsidy per unit of output, the only sensible measure, has decreased.
What do you think the likelihood of 2015 having two general elections is ?
Very hard to say, there are lots of uncertainties. First of all there would to be a hung parliament (say 50% chance), and then we'd have to guess what the LibDems, or possibly the DUP, would do. I take Jack's point about why the LibDems should want to continue the coalition, but, even if the arithmetic makes this possible, it's not clear to me that the LibDem party would accept even if the top echelons wanted to. Equally Cameron would have an uphill struggle selling another coalition to the Conservative Party. Alternatively, we could end up with a situation where neither of Con+LD or Lab+LD has a majority, or we could end up with Lab+LD arithmetically possible. In the latter case, it's going to be a bit odd for the LibDems to enter a new coalition undoing much of what they just done, so that doesn't look an easy deal either even if Labour wanted it.
Putting all that together, the chance of a minority government must be fairly high - maybe 20% at a guess?
I don't think a minority government would be at all stable, but that doesn't mean it would collapse in 2015; it might struggle on in increasing chaos until the other parties jointly decided it was in their interests to switch off the life-support machine. When that moment would come is anyone's guess.
The problem with the two elections in 2015 theory is the Fixed Term Parliament Act. This effectively takes away the option that Harold Wilson had in 1974 to call a second general election in the year.
There are provisions in the act to allow a general election but that requires the cooperation of enough parties to produce a two-thirds majority agreeing to the notion. Why should they do that?
The act could be repealed but that would require enough MPs to get it though and why should opposition parties give back the power to choose election dates to the PM?
If no party is able to provide stable government, Her Majesty will dissolve parliament. Simples.
Next Permanent England Test Capt: 7/4 Ian Bell, 3/1 Stuart Broad, 5 James Anderson, Matt Prior, 10 Eoin Morgan, 20 Joe Root, 33 Sam Robson.
Edit: Jimmy is 8/1 with Paddy Power.
Brave. England have had a permanent bowling captain since Bob Willis, or, if we include the summer of 4 captains, John Emburey. Jimmy is clinging on to get Sir Ian's record and the 400 and he will hang up his boots. After Ashes 2015 I would imagine. Broad a better bet but he's a moody little Mary. Bell the continuity option, Prior the right choice. Morgan isn't an option, he's Irish and shite at test match cricket, Root isn't secure in his slot and Sam Robson is the captain after next.
Prior's keeping has become rubbish, and his batting in the last year has been shite, and in that injury problem he's got, then he's not going to last long as a player, so deffo not captain.
Anderson's a Burnley lad, and chaps from Burnley are awesome, and good at leading, be it at cricket or running a website.
Being awesome from Burnley is an impressive achievement, considering Burnley is in Lancashire
Next Permanent England Test Capt: 7/4 Ian Bell, 3/1 Stuart Broad, 5 James Anderson, Matt Prior, 10 Eoin Morgan, 20 Joe Root, 33 Sam Robson.
Edit: Jimmy is 8/1 with Paddy Power.
Brave. England have had a permanent bowling captain since Bob Willis, or, if we include the summer of 4 captains, John Emburey. Jimmy is clinging on to get Sir Ian's record and the 400 and he will hang up his boots. After Ashes 2015 I would imagine. Broad a better bet but he's a moody little Mary. Bell the continuity option, Prior the right choice. Morgan isn't an option, he's Irish and shite at test match cricket, Root isn't secure in his slot and Sam Robson is the captain after next.
Prior's keeping has become rubbish, and his batting in the last year has been shite, and in that injury problem he's got, then he's not going to last long as a player, so deffo not captain.
Anderson's a Burnley lad, and chaps from Burnley are awesome, and good at leading, be it at cricket or running a website.
Being awesome from Burnley is an impressive achievement, considering Burnley is in Lancashire
Jimmy is a God. but he should have got the job when Strauss went. Now is not the time, he needs to focus on keeping it together for another year and a bit.
- A better safety record - A better punctuality record - Nicer trains - More passengers - More investment - Lower subsidy per passenger mile
What's not to like? Those arguing for nationalisation are basically arguing for wealthy come county commuters to be subsidised by the taxpayer so they can live more affordably in the suburbs.
You don't understand the system at all, that is clear. The public subsidy now is far higher than under BR, franchising is already funded by general taxation. The difference is that we privatise the gains and socialise the losses. As Max points out below.
@TSE so it should be, given the huge hike in the public subsidy!
There's also the issue of safety problems caused by de-nationalisation and fragmentation, and the reduction in service after Hatfield and in bad weather because the commercial companies were more worried about money (and to be fair also legal action) than service.
This is ideology rather than empiricism. The number of fatal accidents has continued to fall:
- A better safety record - A better punctuality record - Nicer trains - More passengers - More investment - Lower subsidy per passenger mile
What's not to like? Those arguing for nationalisation are basically arguing for wealthy come county commuters to be subsidised by the taxpayer so they can live more affordably in the suburbs.
You don't understand the system at all, that is clear. The public subsidy now is far higher than under BR, franchising is already funded by general taxation. The difference is that we privatise the gains and socialise the losses. As Max points out below.
@TSE so it should be, given the huge hike in the public subsidy!
Yes, that's one of the most commonly quoted facts that is used to support this ridiculous myth.
(1) Subsidies are determined in relation to the income the network makes and spends on its passengers. Both revenue and passenger use are up massively since privatisation. Passenger use has more than doubled. If you compare current subsidies as a % of total revenue, current levels compare to those in the last few years of British Rail's existence. There is no clear increasing trend:
(2) A lot of the increase is down to big increases in spending to repair and refurbish the rail network following years of underinvestment during nationalisation post Hatfield/Potters Bar. It is worth bearing in mind BR used to get fed scraps from the Treasury table once all the more important government departments had been allocated their funding.
(3) A sizeable chunk of the increase in investment in loss-making infrastructure, including the opening and upgrading of old railway lines. This was a policy pursued by the previous Labour governmental to encourage a modal shift from road. Examples include reopening and electrifying railway lines in South Wales:
Those making the argument for renationalisation tend to hang their hats on the point that fares would be cheaper, subsidies would be lower *and* overall performance better with a public owned railway.
As a frequent user of rail in this country, pre and post privatisation, the changes have been undoubtedly for the better.
I think where a lot of people have issues is the prices of tickets, which compared to Europe and America, mile for mile, is a lot more expensive.
My second frequent journey is Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston, an open first class ticket costs close to £400.
Flying Manchester to London is around £100.
And that flight is an open, first class ticket, is it?
Sadly BA don't do first class on that journey.
An open standard return train ticket is close to £200
Surely a restricted standard ticket would be the fair comparison?
Only around 2-3% of passengers use such tickets, mainly business travellers. The UK has some of the most expensive tickets for 'turn-up and go' instant, long-distance travel, at peak times. However, it also has some of the cheapest for tickets booked/reserved in advance. The latter are far more heavily used than the former.
£200 is more than I'd like to pay; however, once you start adding extra journey/waiting time, parking and/or taxis to/from the airport it probably doesn't compare too unfavourably with flying. Plus, you can work through Wi-Fi and make telephone calls.
It seems to be the market operating as it should be to me.
Yes, but we're not trying to work out the typical cost of a ticket. We're comparing it to the cost of flights. Flights are almost always restricted tickets, so you should compare a restricted ticket on the rail. The fact that railways have a widely-used option to pay a slight premium above this price to have flexibility is a further argument for rail over flights.
Yes, been on the phone to Mike, the plan was always to lift the restriction once the verdicts were in. Everyone, just be careful what you say, especially about people who have been found not guilty, and those who haven't been charged
What do you think the likelihood of 2015 having two general elections is ?
Very hard to say, there are lots of uncertainties. First of all there would to be a hung parliament (say 50% chance), and then we'd have to guess what the LibDems, or possibly the DUP, would do. I take Jack's point about why the LibDems should want to continue the coalition, but, even if the arithmetic makes this possible, it's not clear to me that the LibDem party would accept even if the top echelons wanted to. Equally Cameron would have an uphill struggle selling another coalition to the Conservative Party. Alternatively, we could end up with a situation where neither of Con+LD or Lab+LD has a majority, or we could end up with Lab+LD arithmetically possible. In the latter case, it's going to be a bit odd for the LibDems to enter a new coalition undoing much of what they just done, so that doesn't look an easy deal either even if Labour wanted it.
Putting all that together, the chance of a minority government must be fairly high - maybe 20% at a guess?
I don't think a minority government would be at all stable, but that doesn't mean it would collapse in 2015; it might struggle on in increasing chaos until the other parties jointly decided it was in their interests to switch off the life-support machine. When that moment would come is anyone's guess.
The problem with the two elections in 2015 theory is the Fixed Term Parliament Act. This effectively takes away the option that Harold Wilson had in 1974 to call a second general election in the year.
There are provisions in the act to allow a general election but that requires the cooperation of enough parties to produce a two-thirds majority agreeing to the notion. Why should they do that?
The act could be repealed but that would require enough MPs to get it though and why should opposition parties give back the power to choose election dates to the PM?
Again the problem with a fixed parliament act is denial of supply and demand, a government that doesn't have a majority in the house can't operate the day to day business effectively or not at all and you can't get rid of them easily with this act. The act is impractical and it only exists in order to prevent the LD from blackmailing the Tories with an early election, it keeps coalitions stable but it is a source of instability with a minority government so it will be abolished sooner or later.
Its not different than survation's nationwide polls, LD falling 15% nationwide here 15.2% and hitting the zero bound, Tories falling 8.7 survation has them falling 10% nationwide, the only differences are that Labour is up more than the survation national figures and UKIP by less but its London (LAB rising 5.9% survation nationwide rising 2% and UKIP rising 15.4% and nationwide 20%).
The big problem for the LD is that any lower and they are going to hit the zero bound in so many seats that it will be difficult to keep up with the zulu strategy.
As for renationalising the railways, the problem is as always you can't have many train companies on the same line, in the 19th century train companies built their own lines many next to each other to compete but today you can't do that so its either a private monopoly or a public monopoly on a regional or national scale.
Since private monopolies always tend to misuse their position to increase prices beyond a reasonable point, the only solution is a public monopoly.
Nonsense. There is plenty of competition between rail companies on primary intercity routes (London to the North/Scotland - West Coast/East Coast/Midland/Chiltern) as well as between transport modes - road, air, bus, or not travelling at all - as well as the form where rail companies both operate on the same lines. There are lots of ways rail companies can fight to increase both their absolute passenger numbers and market share.
Even if that was not the case, there are plenty of alternative models for operating successful infrastructure assets. A regulated private sector (such as we have at the moment in gas, electricity, water, aviation and telecommunications) is an eminently workable in rail as well, and much more likely to be responsive to passenger needs and more efficient that a lumbering bureaucratic nationalised monopoly.
Even in absolute terms - ignoring the huge increase in passengers - the rail subsidy is falling quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if it goes down to below 94/95 levels in the next few years:
NB: the jury, which has been considering verdicts since Wednesday, June 11, is still considering further charges against Coulson and former NotW royal editor Clive Goodman of conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office by paying police officers for two royal directories.
As a frequent user of rail in this country, pre and post privatisation, the changes have been undoubtedly for the better.
I think where a lot of people have issues is the prices of tickets, which compared to Europe and America, mile for mile, is a lot more expensive.
My second frequent journey is Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston, an open first class ticket costs close to £400.
Flying Manchester to London is around £100.
And that flight is an open, first class ticket, is it?
Sadly BA don't do first class on that journey.
An open standard return train ticket is close to £200
Surely a restricted standard ticket would be the fair comparison?
Only around 2-3% of passengers use such tickets, mainly business travellers. The UK has some of the most expensive tickets for 'turn-up and go' instant, long-distance travel, at peak times. However, it also has some of the cheapest for tickets booked/reserved in advance. The latter are far more heavily used than the former.
£200 is more than I'd like to pay; however, once you start adding extra journey/waiting time, parking and/or taxis to/from the airport it probably doesn't compare too unfavourably with flying. Plus, you can work through Wi-Fi and make telephone calls.
It seems to be the market operating as it should be to me.
Yes, but we're not trying to work out the typical cost of a ticket. We're comparing it to the cost of flights. Flights are almost always restricted tickets, so you should compare a restricted ticket on the rail. The fact that railways have a widely-used option to pay a slight premium above this price to have flexibility is a further argument for rail over flights.
No need for the "but". I don't disagree with any of that.
Its not different than survation's nationwide polls, LD falling 15% nationwide here 15.2% and hitting the zero bound, Tories falling 8.7 survation has them falling 10% nationwide, the only differences are that Labour is up more than the survation national figures and UKIP by less but its London (LAB rising 5.9% survation nationwide rising 2% and UKIP rising 15.4% and nationwide 20%).
The big problem for the LD is that any lower and they are going to hit the zero bound in so many seats that it will be difficult to keep up with the zulu strategy.
As for renationalising the railways, the problem is as always you can't have many train companies on the same line, in the 19th century train companies built their own lines many next to each other to compete but today you can't do that so its either a private monopoly or a public monopoly on a regional or national scale.
Since private monopolies always tend to misuse their position to increase prices beyond a reasonable point, the only solution is a public monopoly.
Nonsense. There is plenty of competition between rail companies on primary intercity routes (London to the North/Scotland - West Coast/East Coast/Midland/Chiltern) as well as between transport modes - road, air, bus, or not travelling at all - as well as the form where rail companies both operate on the same lines. There are lots of ways rail companies can fight to increase both their absolute passenger numbers and market share.
Even if that was not the case, there are plenty of alternative models for operating successful infrastructure assets. A regulated private sector (such as we have at the moment in gas, electricity, water, aviation and telecommunications) is an eminently workable in rail as well, and much more likely to be responsive to passenger needs and more efficient that a lumbering bureaucratic nationalised monopoly.
What about the suburban to city center rail transport, and don't forget rail not buses or planes. You can have a great number of buses on the roads and planes in the sky but with trains it is restricted by the number of rail lines. Don't you go to other sectors since the others can have as many electricity or gas or water or phone providers as they like, as long as they are not physically limited by the network again (and I can complain about water and gas prices).
And you just reminded me of a story I read in Private Eye about a bus owner increasing fares to fund his canadian operations, so there is plenty to complain about everything.
Actually, they're quite interested in HSR between Edinburgh and Glasgow and working outwards from there.
Right, but they are going to build it at zero cost?
No, so your "savings' on high speed rail are mythical, like all the SNP fiscal plans.
You aren't listening. Dependence, we pay 1.4 billion to help London get to Brum quicker. Independence, we don't. That is absolutely independent (to coin a phrase) of what we do in Scotland.
Why the F should English taxpayers fork out for an entirely unjustified high speed railway between England and a barely populated, mainly frozen, midge infested, impossibly remote, hideously declining, blatantly hostile, repulsively socialist foreign country - i.e. independent Scotland?
What's in it for us? Nothing. That's what. As long as you are part of Britain, you get the benefits of generous, sunbathed southerners in a good mood. If you leave, you become the Faroe Islands with a bit of coal in the scuttle and a history of spitting in our faces.
I doubt Anglo-Scottish transport connections will IMPROVE in that context, unless you pay for everything and give us droit du seigneur. Again.
Classic Unionist argument, in that it completely forgets to say what happens if we vote no. Which is, we don't get a HS2 line over the border anyway for 1-2 generations, so no difference there, and we end up paying for the London-Brum line. And, with the cuts and waste, a lot less of decent railway within Scotland itself.
Classic whiner argument forgetting all the investment made in Scotland - what do us Englanders get for that apart from to and from our shooting estates quicker.
You've lost the ref - move on.
First the Bangkok bar crawler talks mince and now his cretinous little acolyte tries to justify his pathetic drunken post. You low lifes really need to take a look in the mirror.
Actually, they're quite interested in HSR between Edinburgh and Glasgow and working outwards from there.
Right, but they are going to build it at zero cost?
No, so your "savings' on high speed rail are mythical, like all the SNP fiscal plans.
You aren't listening. Dependence, we pay 1.4 billion to help London get to Brum quicker. Independence, we don't. That is absolutely independent (to coin a phrase) of what we do in Scotland.
Why the F should English taxpayers fork out for an entirely unjustified high speed railway between England and a barely populated, mainly frozen, midge infested, impossibly remote, hideously declining, blatantly hostile, repulsively socialist foreign country - i.e. independent Scotland?
What's in it for us? Nothing. That's what. As long as you are part of Britain, you get the benefits of generous, sunbathed southerners in a good mood. If you leave, you become the Faroe Islands with a bit of coal in the scuttle and a history of spitting in our faces.
I doubt Anglo-Scottish transport connections will IMPROVE in that context, unless you pay for everything and give us droit du seigneur. Again.
Classic Unionist argument, in that it completely forgets to say what happens if we vote no. Which is, we don't get a HS2 line over the border anyway for 1-2 generations, so no difference there, and we end up paying for the London-Brum line. And, with the cuts and waste, a lot less of decent railway within Scotland itself.
Classic whiner argument forgetting all the investment made in Scotland - what do us Englanders get for that apart from to and from our shooting estates quicker.
You've lost the ref - move on.
First the Bangkok bar crawler talks mince and now his cretinous little acolyte tries to justify his pathetic drunken post. You low lifes really need to take a look in the mirror.
Miserable little ingrate. Scotland doesn't need recent third rate implants like you.
Comments
If I might nudge you to recall this is a projection for May 2015 not now as polls and other projections reflect.
Would the DUP be happy working with Mr Miliband provided they get enough pork in their barrel do you think ?
Why change horses ?
What nationally realistically are the LIbDems for if not to be part of government and influencing events. It has been their essential strategy for decades and then suddenly at half time they decide it's all too difficult ?!?
The strategy for the LibDems needs to be "we put the nation first" - It isn't a bad offering to place before the voters.
Titter ....
However, what I really hope is that neither Lab or Tories feel it appropriate to rely on the DUP!
No. All Labour are saying is that DOR be allowed to bid for franchises as they come up. They already run ECML successfully. Meanwhile, that well-known lefty Boris is enthusiastically renationalising the West Anglia Line from Liverpool St to Enfield/Chingford.
Reds under the bed everywhere these days it seems!!!
- A better safety record
- A better punctuality record
- Nicer trains
- More passengers
- More investment
- Lower subsidy per passenger mile
What's not to like? Those arguing for nationalisation are basically arguing for wealthy come county commuters to be subsidised by the taxpayer so they can live more affordably in the suburbs.
I think where a lot of people have issues is the prices of tickets, which compared to Europe and America, mile for mile, is a lot more expensive.
My second frequent journey is Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston, an open first class ticket costs close to £400.
Flying Manchester to London is around £100.
An open standard return train ticket is close to £200
William Hill @sharpeangle 3m
Next Permanent England Test Capt: 7/4 Ian Bell, 3/1 Stuart Broad, 5 James Anderson, Matt Prior, 10 Eoin Morgan, 20 Joe Root, 33 Sam Robson.
Edit: Jimmy is 8/1 with Paddy Power.
I'm not too sure it would be much different next time, after all what's the realistic and viable alternative on those figures ?
Most of these historical comparisons are a bit silly - I tend to pay attention to the tracking data for LOTO as it's at least comparable, but I couldn't really tell you what it 'means', if anything.
Popular leaders of popular oppositions are popular, unpopular leaders of unpopular oppositions are unpopular. It's what happens in the other two cases that's a bit messy!
Putting all that together, the chance of a minority government must be fairly high - maybe 20% at a guess?
I don't think a minority government would be at all stable, but that doesn't mean it would collapse in 2015; it might struggle on in increasing chaos until the other parties jointly decided it was in their interests to switch off the life-support machine. When that moment would come is anyone's guess.
Personally, I would be opposed to any kind of coalition, and also to informal support arrangements. Unless there were considerable inducement, of course, such as the other party agreeing to implement the entire Lib Dem manifesto as government policy!
Reply to Jack´s comment:
Post election last time commentators thought the deal would be intractable, lengthy and fraught with difficulties. However as I expected both sides were extremely pragmatic and the personal relationships between the two negotiating teams were cordial.
I'm not too sure it would be much different next time, after all what's the realistic and viable alternative on those figures ?
@TSE so it should be, given the huge hike in the public subsidy!
I don't doubt the usual suspects will huff, puff and vent beautifully for the media but will the Conservatives in particular want a weak minority administration limping from week to week ? - I doubt it.
And whisper it quietly but both sides have actually got on rather well in government knowing that pragmatically there wasn't much option and they each got decent chunks of what they wanted.
Renationalise the railways
Charge the market rate for fares
Remove Gov't subsidies from the rails.
Reinvest all profits into the railways
- A more frequent service
- Cleaner, and more comfortable trains
- Better real-time information
- More railway jobs
- Politer staff
Those arguing for renationalisation tend to fall into three camps:
The first are the social conservatives who get sentimental about the 'British' in British Rail, and hark back to a patriotic golden age of British Railways that never really existed (Mail/Express/Hitches).
The second are socialists who have always detested privatisation, recognise that rail is one where there's still a debate and they might get a bite at it, and hope to use it as a Trojan horse to support further renationalisations (Trade Unions, Mirror, Christian Wolmar etc)
Third is the balance of the public who have convinced themselves (incorrectly) that their local rail service would be better and cheaper if the railways were again under public ownership.
Think Bob Willis in the 80s, let Bell concentrate on his batting.
But perhaps you mean they leave one in each letterbox of your Highland mansion?
£200 is more than I'd like to pay; however, once you start adding extra journey/waiting time, parking and/or taxis to/from the airport it probably doesn't compare too unfavourably with flying. Plus, you can work through Wi-Fi and make telephone calls.
It seems to be the market operating as it should be to me.
2. OfRail to oversee.
3. Sorted ....
4. Next ....
Yellow peril canvassers are an endangered species thereabouts and seem to be put off by the humorous notice by various gates :
"LibDem Canvassers Will be Eaten" ....
In today's changed political environment it might just pay to remain an eclectic contrarian.
There are provisions in the act to allow a general election but that requires the cooperation of enough parties to produce a two-thirds majority agreeing to the notion. Why should they do that?
The act could be repealed but that would require enough MPs to get it though and why should opposition parties give back the power to choose election dates to the PM?
The big problem for the LD is that any lower and they are going to hit the zero bound in so many seats that it will be difficult to keep up with the zulu strategy.
As for renationalising the railways, the problem is as always you can't have many train companies on the same line, in the 19th century train companies built their own lines many next to each other to compete but today you can't do that so its either a private monopoly or a public monopoly on a regional or national scale.
Since private monopolies always tend to misuse their position to increase prices beyond a reasonable point, the only solution is a public monopoly.
You have the temerity to compare untried new kids on the block to my own venerated and exquisitely formed, tried and tested ARSE.
Be gone with you, dastardly wretch and infest ConHome for a week !!
Jimmy is clinging on to get Sir Ian's record and the 400 and he will hang up his boots. After Ashes 2015 I would imagine. Broad a better bet but he's a moody little Mary. Bell the continuity option, Prior the right choice.
Morgan isn't an option, he's Irish and shite at test match cricket, Root isn't secure in his slot and Sam Robson is the captain after next.
I think paying for a tipster is probably likely to end up in a loss, unless you have an appetite for large stakes and the consequential variance - however bookies look out for each way backers where the place price should in reality be under evens but is over. Too many £25 E/W on good 4-1 -> 10-1 shots in 8 horse races and you're barred ! Martin Bishop Racing spams up my facebook alot, I've heard he is pretty awful though.
- If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
- If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011
It is the first of these mechanisms, needing only 50% excluding abstentions, which in practice the opposition parties would be likely to use to kill off a minority government and provoke an election. Alternatively, the minority government could engineer a confidence motion and abstain on it (curious, but it would work).
Anderson's a Burnley lad, and chaps from Burnley are awesome, and good at leading, be it at cricket or running a website.
Being awesome from Burnley is an impressive achievement, considering Burnley is in Lancashire
Clouds gathering ....
A very sparse crowd, indeed the overall attendance has been poor.
Coulson found guilty of phone hacking
I suspect given a forced choice Virgin would overwhelmingly be ahead of First as a preferred operator.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42865000/gif/_42865491_fatal_accidents2_416gr.gif
But if price is such an important factor, why don't you fly instead of taking the train?
(1) Subsidies are determined in relation to the income the network makes and spends on its passengers. Both revenue and passenger use are up massively since privatisation. Passenger use has more than doubled. If you compare current subsidies as a % of total revenue, current levels compare to those in the last few years of British Rail's existence. There is no clear increasing trend:
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/taxpayer_subsidy_train_network_nationalisation-3391
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264679/tsgb-2013.pdf
(2) A lot of the increase is down to big increases in spending to repair and refurbish the rail network following years of underinvestment during nationalisation post Hatfield/Potters Bar. It is worth bearing in mind BR used to get fed scraps from the Treasury table once all the more important government departments had been allocated their funding.
(3) A sizeable chunk of the increase in investment in loss-making infrastructure, including the opening and upgrading of old railway lines. This was a policy pursued by the previous Labour governmental to encourage a modal shift from road. Examples include reopening and electrifying railway lines in South Wales:
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/why-are-rail-subsidies-so-high
Those making the argument for renationalisation tend to hang their hats on the point that fares would be cheaper, subsidies would be lower *and* overall performance better with a public owned railway.
There is no absolutely no evidence for this.
That would do wonders for this site. Think of the betting opportunities ! A chance for more profits...
Wonder where that leaves that?
The act is impractical and it only exists in order to prevent the LD from blackmailing the Tories with an early election, it keeps coalitions stable but it is a source of instability with a minority government so it will be abolished sooner or later.
In my eyes its pissin down what do they mean light drizzle!!!
I'd rather trap an appendage in the door, than fly economy.
Another Murdochathon on pb.com
Will Ed go crawling back?
Crawler!
The Coulson 'Do his phone' email, on the other hand, was pretty damning.
Charlie will be disappointed!!
ooh err vicar
Even if that was not the case, there are plenty of alternative models for operating successful infrastructure assets. A regulated private sector (such as we have at the moment in gas, electricity, water, aviation and telecommunications) is an eminently workable in rail as well, and much more likely to be responsive to passenger needs and more efficient that a lumbering bureaucratic nationalised monopoly.
Even in absolute terms - ignoring the huge increase in passengers - the rail subsidy is falling quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if it goes down to below 94/95 levels in the next few years:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmtran/329/32901.gif
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/24/andy-coulson-found-guilty-of-phone-hacking-live-coverage
You can have a great number of buses on the roads and planes in the sky but with trains it is restricted by the number of rail lines.
Don't you go to other sectors since the others can have as many electricity or gas or water or phone providers as they like, as long as they are not physically limited by the network again (and I can complain about water and gas prices).
And you just reminded me of a story I read in Private Eye about a bus owner increasing fares to fund his canadian operations, so there is plenty to complain about everything.