Network Rail has been finding it very hard to keep costs of the upgrades under control, and it has had a negative effect on the work needed just to keep the network operating. It's a shame, but delays might be necessary to prevent another ten-fold cost overrun as happened with the WCML upgrade.
In the first year of CP5 (the five-year work plan agreed with government), they are 77% behind on overhead line renewals, and 63% behind on signalling renewals. They are also £230 million over budget.
A pause (even on my beloved MML) might be wise, if sad.
It seems the only nationalised part of the railways system is failing on the basics.
As for HS2: building a new railway is a very different ballgame, and one that is many ways easier to do than upgrade existing ones.
I remain very surprised that the LibDems allowed Lansley's Health Reforms to go through given that his proposals were not even in the 2010 Tory manifesto
Yes they were. Page 46.
For that matter the LibDem manifesto had some proposals which were somewhat on the same lines (Page 43).
The First Minister vowed to help clean up Scottish politics after this newspaper unmasked some of the country’s most vile cybernats. Writing exclusively for the Scottish Daily Mail, the SNP leader said the time had come to ‘send a clear message that politics in Scotland will not be sullied by this behaviour’.
I think the extremists on both sides of the Cyberwars fought daily on twitter are as bad as each other. The MSM chooses to only report about the nationalists and seems blinded to the fact that unionists are just as bad. I feeling is that there is a good argument for saying what is said on twitter should stay on twitter, unless it's criminal behaviour. As Sturgeon said she receives hundreds of abusive tweets but chooses to ignore them.
There are many websites on both sides of the equation where these guys fight it out on a daily basis, each side gives as good as it gets. Check out Smash the SNP, United Against Separation, SNPout, Tactical Voter etc. Also there is the dark underbelly of unionism on the west coast which I assume you're aware of.
I have yet to see significant evidence of eg extensive links of anonymous accounts to senior conservatives, or Labour, figures.
Can you help me there?
And there is still the age old cultural issues within the SNP.
A couple of questions for you:
1. Have you actually read the 2 offensive tweets sent by Neil Hay ? 2. Have you heard of Ian Smart ?
I condemn both sides, recent examples of some of the long running cultural issues on the west coast:
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. A relative measure is utter tosh.
Although it was Adam Smith's measure.
And rightly so - if in a society where everyone wears linen shorts, you can't afford one, then you're poor. Even if you can eat.
But I don't think a (fairly high) % of median income is a good way to measure it. I seem to recall that the Rowntree Trust (?) had a much more Smithian way of measuring poverty based on a basket of goods and services akin to linen shirts - things that we would view as a necessity for modern life, as opposed to merely subsisting on the breadline.
It's also possible to use a measure that's part absolute and part relative:
On the excellent Patrick Wintour & Nicholas Watt article, there's one key little snippet that has betting significance, regarding the abortive coup against Clegg:
Pugh expected that other voices would follow. “To my astonishment,” he recalled, “some of the very people who had said to me, ‘Yes, we have got to do something,’ then said diametrically the opposite.”
'Tis ever so. Coups are much harder and more uncertain than everyone expects.
That's why Gordon Brown led Labour into the 2010 GE, despite everyone knowing he was a disaster. It's why Ed Miliband led Labour into the 2015 GE, despite everyone knowing he was a disaster. And it's why whoever becomes Labour leader in a few weeks' time will lead Labour into the 2020 GE, no matter how poor a leader he or she turns out to be.
Yes; the best guarantee that the winner of Labour's donkey derby will still be leader in 2020 is the quality of the other donkeys, one of whom would have to be the replacement.
So in 2009 it was obvious Brown was a disaster, but per the polling, so would anyone else have been. The sole exception was Milibland but he didn't have the gumption to stand against Brown.
Likewise throughout 2010 - 15 there was no candidate signally better than the arse clown Ed.
In 2020 the same will apply. Assuming Yvette wins and then proves useless as LotO, who's the replacement waiting in the wings to do a better job, around whom the envy monkeys will all rally? Butcher? Yeremiy Korbin? Liz Who?
MyBurningEars says -''though the level of unhappy chatter was surprising for a party that advocated coalition government so strongly. '' Yes but don't you think that broadly makes my point? The USP of the LDs was supposedly coalition govt. To be honest I think the charm of coalition for the LDs was the hoped for option of swinging between parties at GEs thanks to some form of PR and never having to actually take the blame for anything. Good riddance to that.
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. A relative measure is utter tosh.
Although it was Adam Smith's measure.
And rightly so - if in a society where everyone wears linen shorts, you can't afford one, then you're poor. Even if you can eat.
But I don't think a (fairly high) % of median income is a good way to measure it. I seem to recall that the Rowntree Trust (?) had a much more Smithian way of measuring poverty based on a basket of goods and services akin to linen shirts - things that we would view as a necessity for modern life, as opposed to merely subsisting on the breadline.
It's also possible to use a measure that's part absolute and part relative:
Well relative poverty would be a measure of distribution more like measures of equality. There's room for both in our understanding of the less well off.
I remain very surprised that the LibDems allowed Lansley's Health Reforms to go through given that his proposals were not even in the 2010 Tory manifesto - never mind the LibDem manifesto. They should have blocked it or walked out of the Coalition. By 2012 it was obvious that they had sustained massive electoral damage by going into Government with the Tories, and this was an issue which really resonated with the public and which would have regained some - though far from all - of the left of centre votes lost to Labour.
Maybe they supported them because they were the right thing to do?
Not everyone thinks solely in terms of party political advantage and f>ck everything else - tough for a Labourite to grasp I know.
The tuition fee policy was, in Cable's words, "financially illiterate".
It was sold as helping to reduce the deficit. In practice, the government totally funded the £9,000 pa per student and borrowed to do so. In a piece of financial jiggery-pokery, the government expenditure was then balanced against the accompanying student debts so that the deficit was unchanged in the national accounts. It increased government borrowing and didn't reduce the deficit. All it did was kick the cost 30 years down the road when many students will not repay their student loans.
When Cable used the words "financially illiterate" he was referring to the Labour policy of reducing the student fees to £6,000 in a fully funded way. What a hypocrite! That was when I resolved not to help his campaign in Twickenham in any way, and why I was delighted when he lost his seat.
Yes, the policy as was had little to do with the deficit - that was necessary salesmanship. Instead it acted as a de facto graduate tax - not a bad policy.
Without tuition fees where does the money come from to produce competitive universities? Perhaps we should do the honest thing and extend secondary education and have a three year sixth form. Then for those that want - have two year 'polytechnic' courses and meaningful 3 year university courses. Tax all gap years.
MyBurningEars says -''though the level of unhappy chatter was surprising for a party that advocated coalition government so strongly. '' Yes but don't you think that broadly makes my point? The USP of the LDs was supposedly coalition govt. To be honest I think the charm of coalition for the LDs was the hoped for option of swinging between parties at GEs thanks to some form of PR and never having to actually take the blame for anything. Good riddance to that.
There's truth in that. The LDs certainly hoped, post PR, that they'd be a part of pretty much every government thereafter, pinning British politics firmly to the centre ground. Counterfactually I wonder how horrified they'd be to discover how PR can also fuel the political extremes that FPTP largely blocks, and that even well intentioned coalition governments can, from global experience, add to instability and uncertainty when everything hits the fan.
As for 10-15 my feeling is that, regardless of one's political leanings, we can acknowledge the LDs were quite good at the governing part - they had some depth to them after all - but inept at the politics, particularly the electoral aspect that you've got to face up to eventually. Their management of the electoral cycle was very poor.
I remain very surprised that the LibDems allowed Lansley's Health Reforms to go through given that his proposals were not even in the 2010 Tory manifesto
Yes they were. Page 46.
For that matter the LibDem manifesto had some proposals which were somewhat on the same lines (Page 43).
The final NHS plan was a mixture of Conservative plans and Lib Dem plans. Cobbled together by Lansley and Letwin to meet both parties aims. A real camel designed by a committee.
Nicola Sturgeon has dramatically intervened in the battle against online trolls by pledging to discipline those SNP members responsible for spreading poisonous abuse.
The First Minister vowed to help clean up Scottish politics after this newspaper unmasked some of the country’s most vile cybernats. Writing exclusively for the Scottish Daily Mail, the SNP leader said the time had come to ‘send a clear message that politics in Scotland will not be sullied by this behaviour’.
She also called on politicians who ‘follow’ online abusers to ‘stop feeding the trolls’. A Mail investigation has found that 72 Nationalist MPs and MSPs, including ministers and senior party figures, have online links with cybernats responsible for some of the worst abuse in public life.
@ Plato - Nicola Sturgeon has dramatically intervened in the battle against online trolls by pledging to discipline those SNP members responsible for spreading poisonous abuse. Meanwhile the PB Nationalists were all telling iis this was untrue there was no abuse and it was all made up by the Daily Heil?
Mr. Sandpit, indeed. A relative measure is utter tosh.
Although it was Adam Smith's measure.
And rightly so - if in a society where everyone wears linen shorts, you can't afford one, then you're poor. Even if you can eat.
But I don't think a (fairly high) % of median income is a good way to measure it. I seem to recall that the Rowntree Trust (?) had a much more Smithian way of measuring poverty based on a basket of goods and services akin to linen shirts - things that we would view as a necessity for modern life, as opposed to merely subsisting on the breadline.
It's also possible to use a measure that's part absolute and part relative:
Well relative poverty would be a measure of distribution more like measures of equality. There's room for both in our understanding of the less well off.
Room enough indeed.
I just don't think it's cogent to call that measuring stick our "poverty" measuring stick. It measures something useful, certainly, but when we read of X million children in poverty this strikes me as an unnecessarily bold attempt at redefining poverty.
I don't think in consumption terms people in that sub 60% group are as badly off as the money figure suggests, because modern consumers have a lot of options to buy cheaper substitutes. If you have a hudl not an iPad, and the car you run is cheap and second-hand, and you shop at Primark and Lidl not M&S and Waitrose, you still have access to much the same functionality. People who can't afford a computer, internet connection or car are very cut off from the modern world, especially if they live away from good public transport and libraries. Their capacity is greatly reduced and I wouldn't object at all to describing them as in poverty, albeit relatively.
@bbclaurak: Senior figure close to the attempted coup to remove Clegg told me 35 MP s were ready to go before rumbled by Oakeshott polling
I don't believe that. If that many were 'ready to go' something would have happened even if not right then. Even if they had spines like biscuits, if that many were 'ready' more would have been done, clearly they were not as firm as that senior figure believes.
The LibDems were historically screwed long before the tuition fees debacle, they just didn't know it. They have been since forever a pushme/pullyou party - communist here, Orange Book there, beards and sandals everywhere. This worked fine as a ragbag of local oppositions. But at the national scale you must present yourself as one thing or the other - and so they were a bomb waiting to explode. Their USP has always been that they can make coalition government a good experience! The fact of a hung parliament was bound to ignite a fuse that led to their destruction as they had been living a deep lie from the outset (and still do). One half of the party was inevitably going to melt - and given the electoral maths in May 2010 the only choice was coalition with Dave and the lefty half going into meltdown.
Much like Labour, the LibDems now need to decide who they are and what they believe in. And to present this consistently everywhere. Good luck with that. It'll be like herding cats. They have become an irrelevance. If they simply disappear nobody will really notice.
Yes.
All they had to do was be liberal. and democratic. We may notice that noone is defending liberalism/liberty after all of our rights and civil liberties (for want of a better phrase) have been lost
you omitted baby eating.
surely a tory policy? Or do you mean lib dems should have been defending such on libertariam grounds?
Just pointing out another daft exaggeration in line with your, "We may notice that noone is defending liberalism/liberty after all of our rights and civil liberties (for want of a better phrase) have been lost"
I remain very surprised that the LibDems allowed Lansley's Health Reforms to go through given that his proposals were not even in the 2010 Tory manifesto
Yes they were. Page 46.
For that matter the LibDem manifesto had some proposals which were somewhat on the same lines (Page 43).
I find it hard to interpret page 46 of the Conservative manifesto as the abolition of PCTs and the creation of GP-lead service commissioning.
Comments
In the first year of CP5 (the five-year work plan agreed with government), they are 77% behind on overhead line renewals, and 63% behind on signalling renewals. They are also £230 million over budget.
A pause (even on my beloved MML) might be wise, if sad.
It seems the only nationalised part of the railways system is failing on the basics.
As for HS2: building a new railway is a very different ballgame, and one that is many ways easier to do than upgrade existing ones.
For that matter the LibDem manifesto had some proposals which were somewhat on the same lines (Page 43).
1. Have you actually read the 2 offensive tweets sent by Neil Hay ?
2. Have you heard of Ian Smart ?
I condemn both sides, recent examples of some of the long running cultural issues on the west coast:
http://www.thenational.scot/news/orangefest-petition-organiser-receives-online-death-threats.3795
Sturgeon follows some of these clowns on Twitter.
Can you show me where Cameron and others have done the same?
But I don't think a (fairly high) % of median income is a good way to measure it. I seem to recall that the Rowntree Trust (?) had a much more Smithian way of measuring poverty based on a basket of goods and services akin to linen shirts - things that we would view as a necessity for modern life, as opposed to merely subsisting on the breadline.
It's also possible to use a measure that's part absolute and part relative:
http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/what-does-adam-smith-s-linen-shirt-have-to-do-with-global-poverty
So in 2009 it was obvious Brown was a disaster, but per the polling, so would anyone else have been. The sole exception was Milibland but he didn't have the gumption to stand against Brown.
Likewise throughout 2010 - 15 there was no candidate signally better than the arse clown Ed.
In 2020 the same will apply. Assuming Yvette wins and then proves useless as LotO, who's the replacement waiting in the wings to do a better job, around whom the envy monkeys will all rally? Butcher? Yeremiy Korbin? Liz Who?
Yes but don't you think that broadly makes my point? The USP of the LDs was supposedly coalition govt.
To be honest I think the charm of coalition for the LDs was the hoped for option of swinging between parties at GEs thanks to some form of PR and never having to actually take the blame for anything.
Good riddance to that.
Not everyone thinks solely in terms of party political advantage and f>ck everything else - tough for a Labourite to grasp I know.
Perhaps we should do the honest thing and extend secondary education and have a three year sixth form. Then for those that want - have two year 'polytechnic' courses and meaningful 3 year university courses. Tax all gap years.
As for 10-15 my feeling is that, regardless of one's political leanings, we can acknowledge the LDs were quite good at the governing part - they had some depth to them after all - but inept at the politics, particularly the electoral aspect that you've got to face up to eventually. Their management of the electoral cycle was very poor.
New Thread
@ Plato - Nicola Sturgeon has dramatically intervened in the battle against online trolls by pledging to discipline those SNP members responsible for spreading poisonous abuse.
Meanwhile the PB Nationalists were all telling iis this was untrue there was no abuse and it was all made up by the Daily Heil?
I just don't think it's cogent to call that measuring stick our "poverty" measuring stick. It measures something useful, certainly, but when we read of X million children in poverty this strikes me as an unnecessarily bold attempt at redefining poverty.
I don't think in consumption terms people in that sub 60% group are as badly off as the money figure suggests, because modern consumers have a lot of options to buy cheaper substitutes. If you have a hudl not an iPad, and the car you run is cheap and second-hand, and you shop at Primark and Lidl not M&S and Waitrose, you still have access to much the same functionality. People who can't afford a computer, internet connection or car are very cut off from the modern world, especially if they live away from good public transport and libraries. Their capacity is greatly reduced and I wouldn't object at all to describing them as in poverty, albeit relatively.
"We may notice that noone is defending liberalism/liberty after all of our rights and civil liberties (for want of a better phrase) have been lost"