Any idea what Owen Smith is playing at this morning with Brexit?
Seems to have taken the heat off Corbyn and traingate
He's playing to his current gallery (Labour members [90% remain]) while destroying Labour's electoral chances in the English shires, the North and Wales. Other than that, it's a fantastic plan. If Corbyn is a lunatic, Smith is a simpleton.
And to think we all laugh at the Amercians being given the option of Tweedledum or Tweedledee in their election, yet here is one of our major parties, with a century of history, giving their members the choice of Dumb and Dumber.
PS - I wouldn't go back to BR given the choice. I would prefer to see regional companies owning both track and train giving the cost efficiency of vertical integration.
BR was too large to be able to focus on development of secondary flows. Breaking up into smaller units has helped here.
Brexit will allow this and a start could be made by selling off the Southern Region (South West, Trains, Southern, Southeastern, Thameslink) which are not far off profitabilty and probably would be outright profitable with vertical integration and reformed labour practices (get shot of guards etc.).
Running powers would cover through working onto other railways lines.
The viability problems get worse the further North you go though.
Excellent, my copy of Stiglitz's new book has arrived. I'm told it is the best he's written.
I am envious. I plan to read it when I actually get some time.
I'll try not to post any spoilers in that case! I got it because it seemed quite pertinent to Brexit and understanding the underlying reasons for it.
Well, whatever the pros and cons of Brexit, the Euro is clearly a disaster. Let's raise a statue to Gordon Brown and Ed Balls for keeping us out of that madness.
It is indeed a disaster. I'd give the statue to a certain Mr Hague who managed to make Euroscepticism a mainstream issue, paving the way for our vote to leave!
Though ironically Hague backed Remain, he just opposed the Euro
Just as ironically, it is probably Hague's campaign against the Euro that meant his party did so badly -- it is said that activists sent back false tractor stats about how well they were campaigning on an issue where probably most voters did not care, and if they did then Gordon Brown, with his five tests, had already ruled out joining the Euro. Hague was a great parliamentary performer but had no judgement.
Excellent, my copy of Stiglitz's new book has arrived. I'm told it is the best he's written.
I am envious. I plan to read it when I actually get some time.
I'll try not to post any spoilers in that case! I got it because it seemed quite pertinent to Brexit and understanding the underlying reasons for it.
Well, whatever the pros and cons of Brexit, the Euro is clearly a disaster. Let's raise a statue to Gordon Brown and Ed Balls for keeping us out of that madness.
It is indeed a disaster. I'd give the statue to a certain Mr Hague who managed to make Euroscepticism a mainstream issue, paving the way for our vote to leave!
It's worth noting that the consensus is that the reason the {Merkel, Hollande, Renzi} statement concentrated on defence & security is because they can't agree on anything else.
Merkel won't support Renzi's plans for Italian banks, nor will she countenance relaxation of the Euro's fiscal rules to satisfy Hollande. The Germans just aren't minded to complete EMU. It's paralysing the EU, not just the Eurozone.
Voters in the countries that would end up paying for fiscal transfers aren't going to vote for fiscal transfers sold as such. The solution is to hide them behind programs that the voters in rich countries support, like border security, defence and clean energy.
Excellent, my copy of Stiglitz's new book has arrived. I'm told it is the best he's written.
I am envious. I plan to read it when I actually get some time.
I'll try not to post any spoilers in that case! I got it because it seemed quite pertinent to Brexit and understanding the underlying reasons for it.
Well, whatever the pros and cons of Brexit, the Euro is clearly a disaster. Let's raise a statue to Gordon Brown and Ed Balls for keeping us out of that madness.
It is indeed a disaster. I'd give the statue to a certain Mr Hague who managed to make Euroscepticism a mainstream issue, paving the way for our vote to leave!
It's worth noting that the consensus is that the reason the {Merkel, Hollande, Renzi} statement concentrated on defence & security is because they can't agree on anything else.
Merkel won't support Renzi's plans for Italian banks, nor will she countenance relaxation of the Euro's fiscal rules to satisfy Hollande. The Germans just aren't minded to complete EMU. It's paralysing the EU, not just the Eurozone.
Yes, well the consensus here is that they are essentially trying to usurp NATO with a military structure which doesn't have rules on minimum expenditure, paving the way for budget cuts. The EU is an insular organisation driven by petty internal squabbling, the EU army will be no different, for a bloc of 430m people, you'd expect a defence budget of around $300bn, if anyone believes the will to spend $300bn on a common defence policy exists, I've also got a bridge to sell them.
On the latter point, currently Germany are the only nation who benefit from EMU policy, it puts southern Europe in a constant state of austerity which drives down the value of the Euro from necessity of QE. Until that changes Germany will not give up any advantage that delivers higher employment levels, growth and falling debt levels. As for Italy, it is time for Renzi to stand up and be counted, tell the commission to stick their banking regulations and rescue the banking sector, dare them to unwind it after it is done.
Labour's chances at the next election are being chuffed to bits.
Wow, class 458 wit there, where's my notebook ?
More seriously, this will be forgotten in a month as other things come along to other platforms.
Those who want a stick with which to beat Corbyn have their fun - it's all getting a bit boring and tiresome now. Smith is effectively the 2010s Kinnock - he was to take back control of the Party (if he can) and start it on the road back to Government because, to be honest, Labour are still the only alternative Government.
The disappointing aspect of this is there is a proper serious debate to be had about transport provision in this country and in their own ways Corbyn and Branson have undermined that debate.
Excellent, my copy of Stiglitz's new book has arrived. I'm told it is the best he's written.
I am envious. I plan to read it when I actually get some time.
I'll try not to post any spoilers in that case! I got it because it seemed quite pertinent to Brexit and understanding the underlying reasons for it.
Well, whatever the pros and cons of Brexit, the Euro is clearly a disaster. Let's raise a statue to Gordon Brown and Ed Balls for keeping us out of that madness.
It is indeed a disaster. I'd give the statue to a certain Mr Hague who managed to make Euroscepticism a mainstream issue, paving the way for our vote to leave!
It's worth noting that the consensus is that the reason the {Merkel, Hollande, Renzi} statement concentrated on defence & security is because they can't agree on anything else.
Merkel won't support Renzi's plans for Italian banks, nor will she countenance relaxation of the Euro's fiscal rules to satisfy Hollande. The Germans just aren't minded to complete EMU. It's paralysing the EU, not just the Eurozone.
So their reaction to the Brexit vote, the migrant crisis and the Italian banks about to go bust is to revive the plans for an EU army.
PS - I wouldn't go back to BR given the choice. I would prefer to see regional companies owning both track and train giving the cost efficiency of vertical integration.
BR was too large to be able to focus on development of secondary flows. Breaking up into smaller units has helped here.
Brexit will allow this and a start could be made by selling off the Southern Region (South West, Trains, Southern, Southeastern, Thameslink) which are not far off profitabilty and probably would be outright profitable with vertical integration and reformed labour practices (get shot of guards etc.).
Running powers would cover through working onto other railways lines.
The viability problems get worse the further North you go though.
Would you deregulate the fares on the old Southern network? I pay £3,100 a year to commute from Woking, do you think the company should be allowed to set the price of such a ticket?
I caught the Radio 5 phone in this morning, pitting Corbyn and Smith supporters against each other. I think they actually hate each other more than they hate the Tories.
PS - I wouldn't go back to BR given the choice. I would prefer to see regional companies owning both track and train giving the cost efficiency of vertical integration.
BR was too large to be able to focus on development of secondary flows. Breaking up into smaller units has helped here.
Brexit will allow this and a start could be made by selling off the Southern Region (South West, Trains, Southern, Southeastern, Thameslink) which are not far off profitabilty and probably would be outright profitable with vertical integration and reformed labour practices (get shot of guards etc.).
Running powers would cover through working onto other railways lines.
The viability problems get worse the further North you go though.
Would you deregulate the fares on the old Southern network? I pay £3,100 a year to commute from Woking, do you think the company should be allowed to set the price of such a ticket?
Deregulation where regional monopolies exist is just a licence to print money, however, I don't see where deregulation was mentioned.
So their reaction to the Brexit vote, the migrant crisis and the Italian banks about to go bust is to revive the plans for an EU army.
And they wonder why we voted to leave?
Actually, Brexit would never have happened without the Bruges Speech from Margaret Thatcher - that marked the start of the Conservative Party's journey to Euro scepticism and indeed can be seen as one of the seminal political events of recent times.
On the current EU (of which we are still very much a member), the organisation is in a holding pattern a) because of Brexit which won't start until we trigger Article 50 and b) elections in France, Italy and Germany in the next 12-18 months which could very well mark a significant change in political direction with Hollande likely to be replaced by Juppe, Renzi looking in trouble and even Merkel not guaranteed to have the same authority she enjoys now.
@Wulfrun_Phil I think you missed my gentle sarcasm. If losing seats from a low base is a success, Corbyn will be very successful. The most successful, indeed, since HeNderson's memorable loss of 178 or 231 seats (depending on how it's counted) in 1931. Yes, the sort of second attempt at couponing magnified Labour's losses (I think the final outcome was something like 556 National and 100-odd others) but that wasn't actually that unusual in that period (cf 1906 and 1910, 1918).
@Paul_Bedfordshire I agree about vertical integration. But if over a million passengers a year is not a viable route, something is wrong somewhere.
@AlistairM very good! How about Corbyn and his supporters being decoupled from reality?
PS - I wouldn't go back to BR given the choice. I would prefer to see regional companies owning both track and train giving the cost efficiency of vertical integration.
BR was too large to be able to focus on development of secondary flows. Breaking up into smaller units has helped here.
Brexit will allow this and a start could be made by selling off the Southern Region (South West, Trains, Southern, Southeastern, Thameslink) which are not far off profitabilty and probably would be outright profitable with vertical integration and reformed labour practices (get shot of guards etc.).
Running powers would cover through working onto other railways lines.
The viability problems get worse the further North you go though.
Would you deregulate the fares on the old Southern network? I pay £3,100 a year to commute from Woking, do you think the company should be allowed to set the price of such a ticket?
Deregulation where regional monopolies exist is just a licence to print money, however, I don't see where deregulation was mentioned.
It wasn't, but I've wondered if it might actually be a good thing to let the price rise.
Mr. Sandpit, interesting coincidence that Germany is now thinking of returning to national service, just as an EU army becomes more likely.
I would have thought Eurpoe might have learned its lesson about what happens when an expansive German-funded army takes over the continent, but obviously not.
Labour's chances at the next election are being chuffed to bits.
Wow, class 458 wit there, where's my notebook ?
More seriously, this will be forgotten in a month as other things come along to other platforms.
Those who want a stick with which to beat Corbyn have their fun - it's all getting a bit boring and tiresome now. Smith is effectively the 2010s Kinnock - he was to take back control of the Party (if he can) and start it on the road back to Government because, to be honest, Labour are still the only alternative Government.
The disappointing aspect of this is there is a proper serious debate to be had about transport provision in this country and in their own ways Corbyn and Branson have undermined that debate.
I don't see this as a trivial story. Jeremy Corbyn has been sold on his integrity. He seems to have told flagrant lies about this. It goes to character and does not fit with his previous public image. It's getting a lot of publicity and I expect the public will remember that he tells fibs.
Mulholland Drive? I don't think I've ever even heard of it. What's it about? (I only want the premise, not the actualité; if it sounds good enough I might go and buy the DVD).
I once heard a film review programme on the radio where the idiotic studio guest kept on saying "prim-EYES" instead of "PREM-iss".
You can't really describe the plot in a few words. If we told you what it is was about it would spoil it....And ultimately, its a David Lynch film, its about what you make it to be about.
PS...It is a very good movie. That and Lost Highway are my favourite of his movies.
Cannot really describe the plot and is about what you make it to be about? So it is confirmed to be self indulgent clap trap then.
All of this proves that Jeremy Corbyn is a decadent reactionary lickspittle of the American imperialists, Soviet revisionists, renegade Titoite cliques, a cynicalist, opportunist, obscurantist, debauched traitor who is plotting against the people's power. He has earned the enduring contempt and ridicule of the vast majority of ordinary normal decent proletarian workers, peasants, soldiers, students, revolutionary intellectuals and petty-bourgeois commuter class.
He must have been busy to be a lickspittle of so many.
I predict we'll be moving into the next phase fight back on this story, where Corbyn defenders start mocking how the story has no impact upon polling etc, even though almost no one will even have claimed it would, acting as though those mocking him thought this alone would topple him.
Well I had already predicted that this prediction was going to be made.
I caught the Radio 5 phone in this morning, pitting Corbyn and Smith supporters against each other. I think they actually hate each other more than they hate the Tories.
I'm astonished they manged to find a Smith supporter! I didn't think they existed.
PS - I wouldn't go back to BR given the choice. I would prefer to see regional companies owning both track and train giving the cost efficiency of vertical integration.
BR was too large to be able to focus on development of secondary flows. Breaking up into smaller units has helped here.
Brexit will allow this and a start could be made by selling off the Southern Region (South West, Trains, Southern, Southeastern, Thameslink) which are not far off profitabilty and probably would be outright profitable with vertical integration and reformed labour practices (get shot of guards etc.).
Running powers would cover through working onto other railways lines.
The viability problems get worse the further North you go though.
Would you deregulate the fares on the old Southern network? I pay £3,100 a year to commute from Woking, do you think the company should be allowed to set the price of such a ticket?
I think I would prefer them to be deregulated as far as possible so that the balance between supply and demand can be set according to the market. The rub is the model to use.
They need to start by breaking the Rail Unions, though.
£3100 for a full season ticket is around £6.00-6.50 each way for a journey of 25 miles or so if you travel nearly all weekdays, which is not expensive imo. That is the same as a 15-17 mile car journey at 40p per mile anywhere in the country.
Then you get unlimited weekend travel into London for free.
Any idea what Owen Smith is playing at this morning with Brexit?
Seems to have taken the heat off Corbyn and traingate
He's playing to his current gallery (Labour members [90% remain]) while destroying Labour's electoral chances in the English shires, the North and Wales. Other than that, it's a fantastic plan. If Corbyn is a lunatic, Smith is a simpleton.
As a pro-Brexit Smith-supporting Labour member, I don't have any problem with his understandable stance.
The EU only has the capacity to do continuing long term electoral damage to Labour if people especially working class people continue to care about the issue. Yet by 2020 Brexit will be a done deal regardless of what Smith says or Labour does in the meantime. Unless Brexit has gone incredibly badly, the question of the UK rejoining the EU will by 2020 be about as relevant to political debate as is currently the question of whether the UK should join the Euro in 2016.
Excellent, my copy of Stiglitz's new book has arrived. I'm told it is the best he's written.
I am envious. I plan to read it when I actually get some time.
I'll try not to post any spoilers in that case! I got it because it seemed quite pertinent to Brexit and understanding the underlying reasons for it.
Well, whatever the pros and cons of Brexit, the Euro is clearly a disaster. Let's raise a statue to Gordon Brown and Ed Balls for keeping us out of that madness.
It is indeed a disaster. I'd give the statue to a certain Mr Hague who managed to make Euroscepticism a mainstream issue, paving the way for our vote to leave!
Though ironically Hague backed Remain, he just opposed the Euro
Just as ironically, it is probably Hague's campaign against the Euro that meant his party did so badly -- it is said that activists sent back false tractor stats about how well they were campaigning on an issue where probably most voters did not care, and if they did then Gordon Brown, with his five tests, had already ruled out joining the Euro. Hague was a great parliamentary performer but had no judgement.
The only leader who would have done better than Hague in 2001 was Ken Clarke and if he was Tory leader Blair would have taken us into the Euro
Labour's chances at the next election are being chuffed to bits.
Wow, class 458 wit there, where's my notebook ?
More seriously, this will be forgotten in a month as other things come along to other platforms.
Those who want a stick with which to beat Corbyn have their fun - it's all getting a bit boring and tiresome now. Smith is effectively the 2010s Kinnock - he was to take back control of the Party (if he can) and start it on the road back to Government because, to be honest, Labour are still the only alternative Government.
The disappointing aspect of this is there is a proper serious debate to be had about transport provision in this country and in their own ways Corbyn and Branson have undermined that debate.
I don't see this as a trivial story. Jeremy Corbyn has been sold on his integrity. He seems to have told flagrant lies about this. It goes to character and does not fit with his previous public image. It's getting a lot of publicity and I expect the public will remember that he tells fibs.
I'd see it as confirming Corbyn's character as a serial dissembler.
We knew that within days or weeks of his being elected last year, when he swerved awkward questions by answering something else. Just like Blair with a beard.
Corbyn's "Straight, honest politics" slogan was always a lie.
Labour's chances at the next election are being chuffed to bits.
The disappointing aspect of this is there is a proper serious debate to be had about transport provision in this country and in their own ways Corbyn and Branson have undermined that debate.
What sort of debate is Corbyn's 'we'll nationalise it'?
How does that explain how there'll be more trains and more seats?
In contrast, Virgin:
On the East Coast route, £140m is being invested to create a more personalised travel experience. We have already invested £21m to completely revamp our existing fleet and customers can now benefit from 42 additional services (22,000 extra seats) per week between Edinburgh and London. 2018 will see the introduction of completely new Azuma trains being built in the UK by Hitachi.
PS - I wouldn't go back to BR given the choice. I would prefer to see regional companies owning both track and train giving the cost efficiency of vertical integration.
BR was too large to be able to focus on development of secondary flows. Breaking up into smaller units has helped here.
Brexit will allow this and a start could be made by selling off the Southern Region (South West, Trains, Southern, Southeastern, Thameslink) which are not far off profitabilty and probably would be outright profitable with vertical integration and reformed labour practices (get shot of guards etc.).
Running powers would cover through working onto other railways lines.
The viability problems get worse the further North you go though.
Would you deregulate the fares on the old Southern network? I pay £3,100 a year to commute from Woking, do you think the company should be allowed to set the price of such a ticket?
I think I would prefer them to be deregulated as far as possible so that the balance between supply and demand can be set according to the market. The rub is the model to use.
They need to start by breaking the Rail Unions, though.
£3100 for a full season ticket is around £6.00-6.50 each way for a journey of 25 miles or so if you travel nearly all weekdays, which is not expensive imo. That is the same as a 15-17 mile car journey at 40p per mile anywhere in the country.
Then you get unlimited weekend travel into London for free.
I'd argue against 40p a mile for driving, I still have my car for leisure so still have to pay insurance and maintenance. But I agree that you could put up train fares into London and people would pay it. Over time people might start to weigh up moving away from London and firms in London will have to offer even higher wages to keep the people they want.
All of this proves that Jeremy Corbyn is a decadent reactionary lickspittle of the American imperialists, Soviet revisionists, renegade Titoite cliques, a cynicalist, opportunist, obscurantist, debauched traitor who is plotting against the people's power. He has earned the enduring contempt and ridicule of the vast majority of ordinary normal decent proletarian workers, peasants, soldiers, students, revolutionary intellectuals and petty-bourgeois commuter class.
He must have been busy to be a lickspittle of so many.
I predict we'll be moving into the next phase fight back on this story, where Corbyn defenders start mocking how the story has no impact upon polling etc, even though almost no one will even have claimed it would, acting as though those mocking him thought this alone would topple him.
Well I had already predicted that this prediction was going to be made.
Labour's chances at the next election are being chuffed to bits.
Wow, class 458 wit there, where's my notebook ?
More seriously, this will be forgotten in a month as other things come along to other platforms.
Those who want a stick wi the 2010s Kinnock - he was to take back control of the Party (if he can) and staest
Th
I don't see this as a trivial story. Jeremy Corbyn has been sold on his integrity. He seems to have told flagrant lies about this. It goes to character and does not fit with his previous public image. It's getting a lot of publicity and I expect the public will remember that he tells fibs.
I've heard a few people suggest the same, in that while the actual facts are fairly trivial (and to stodge, even if the seats say reserved if past the station they were supposed to be filled you can use them - Corbyn travels a lot thesedays and must know that, and even if he doesn't, it doesn't make his complaint any more true just because he was mistaken, there were seats he could use if he had wanted), it shows him as being perfectly willing to spin just as any other politician, and that goes agains this appeal.
But I think it'll take quite a few more examples like this before it sinks through - his other flaws are in fact strengths to many of his supporters, and this is the first 'same as the rest' thing that I recall getting some major press, and even then because it is silly season.
Years ago, I was at a Pentapartite. The Yanks were pretty clear that the only thing, the one thing, that they didn't want the Europeans to do was set up a parallel C3I structure to NATO. This was because it would undermine US domestic support for the alliance.
Labour's chances at the next election are being chuffed to bits.
The disappointing aspect of this is there is a proper serious debate to be had about transport provision in this country and in their own ways Corbyn and Branson have undermined that debate.
What sort of debate is Corbyn's 'we'll nationalise it'?
How does that explain how there'll be more trains and more seats?
In contrast, Virgin:
On the East Coast route, £140m is being invested to create a more personalised travel experience. We have already invested £21m to completely revamp our existing fleet and customers can now benefit from 42 additional services (22,000 extra seats) per week between Edinburgh and London. 2018 will see the introduction of completely new Azuma trains being built in the UK by Hitachi.
It is a morsel of old socialist meat to throw to the dogs to keep them quiet. Mr Corbyn may or may not believe it, but he is reckless to the consequences.
I'd identify others:
Fox hunting for Blair. Independent schools, and a nationalised education system. Recently opposition to the mythical privatisation of the NHS, and "toff" bankers.
It is about appealing to the neanderthal sub-brain of his supporters.
Smith's pitch to the 48% is quite clever if he believes that he won't actually have to deliver on a second referendum. Realistically, Brexit should be a done deal by May 2020, for good or bad. He can shout and promise whatever he wants, and as long as the PM doesn't go to the country early, Smith will never face the uncertainties, division and chaos that a second referendum would undoubtedly bring.
Labour's chances at the next election are being chuffed to bits.
The disappointing aspect of this is there is a proper serious debate to be had about transport provision in this country and in their own ways Corbyn and Branson have undermined that debate.
What sort of debate is Corbyn's 'we'll nationalise it'?
How does that explain how there'll be more trains and more seats?
In contrast, Virgin:
On the East Coast route, £140m is being invested to create a more personalised travel experience. We have already invested £21m to completely revamp our existing fleet and customers can now benefit from 42 additional services (22,000 extra seats) per week between Edinburgh and London. 2018 will see the introduction of completely new Azuma trains being built in the UK by Hitachi.
It is a morsel of old socialist meat to throw to the dogs to keep them quiet. Mr Corbyn may or may not believe it, but he is reckless to the consequences.
I'd identify others:
Fox hunting for Blair. Independent schools, and a nationalised education system. Recently opposition to the mythical privatisation of the NHS, and "toff" bankers.
It is about appealing to the neanderthal sub-brain of his supporters.
The Tories have had their moments. Section 28 will still get older members muttering into their beer.
Years ago, I was at a Pentapartite. The Yanks were pretty clear that the only thing, the one thing, that they didn't want the Europeans to do was set up a parallel C3I structure to NATO. This was because it would undermine US domestic support for the alliance.
It also surely undermines the idea of the US nuclear umbrella which is guaranteed by NATO. If the alliance is dissolved then the new EU military will be reliant on their own deterrent. One which the French may not be too happy to continue paying for or one which the EU will be happy to fund centrally from EU funds given their aversion to WMDs.
It is a disaster policy and US generals must be tearing their hair out at the moment with Trump on one side and the EU on the other side.
Smith's pitch to the 48% is quite clever if he believes that he won't actually have to deliver on a second referendum. Realistically, Brexit should be a done deal by May 2020, for good or bad. He can shout and promise whatever he wants, and as long as the PM doesn't go to the country early, Smith will never face the uncertainties, division and chaos that a second referendum would undoubtedly bring.
Will he offer a cast iron guarantee? That went well for another leader in recent times!
Mr. Max, to be fair, cast iron is strong. Although it does shatter, under sufficient duress...
Mr. Max (2)/Mr. M, at the risk of being repetitive, the EU is thick and is institutionally flawed.
Mr. Topping, my favourite spoiler complaint was of a historical game (not WWII, though) when some people complained the ending had been given away. [I do think spoilers generally are the work of Satan, but people whining because others note Napoleon didn't win is a bit silly].
Smith's pitch to the 48% is quite clever if he believes that he won't actually have to deliver on a second referendum. Realistically, Brexit should be a done deal by May 2020, for good or bad. He can shout and promise whatever he wants, and as long as the PM doesn't go to the country early, Smith will never face the uncertainties, division and chaos that a second referendum would undoubtedly bring.
But wouldn't most of the divisions be within the Labour Party? Both the pre-existing split between membership and voter base, and what would be a new split between Revisionists - who'd be seeking to overturn the original decision - and Mandatories, who'd believe that the decision has been made, the the government has the authority to get on with it and that any attempt to revisit the issue in the absence of a profound change in circumstances would be undemocratic.
Whether or not he has to deliver, I will certainly be advocating here in Wakefield that if Smith wins, we make something of the European question - the key point being not the issue itself but the disconnect in values between Smith and the people he expects to vote for him.
Mr. Max, to be fair, cast iron is strong. Although it does shatter, under sufficient duress...
Mr. Max (2)/Mr. M, at the risk of being repetitive, the EU is thick and is institutionally flawed.
Mr. Topping, my favourite spoiler complaint was of a historical game (not WWII, though) when some people complained the ending had been given away. [I do think spoilers generally are the work of Satan, but people whining because others note Napoleon didn't win is a bit silly].
Perhaps they were French historians, Mr Dancer!
Edit - no, sorry, that would be impossible, they've been insisting for 201 years that he did win.
Excellent, my copy of Stiglitz's new book has arrived. I'm told it is the best he's written.
I am envious. I plan to read it when I actually get some time.
I'll try not to post any spoilers in that case! I got it because it seemed quite pertinent to Brexit and understanding the underlying reasons for it.
Well, whatever the pros and cons of Brexit, the Euro is clearly a disaster. Let's raise a statue to Gordon Brown and Ed Balls for keeping us out of that madness.
@SteveDoherty1: Corbyn defender on @BBCr4today said he’d had “a long day” and “wanted to get his head down”. It was 11 o’clock in the morning.
Team Corbyn seem determined to keep this story running for another cycle
Jeez Seumas, you haven't got a clue have you? Your whole team need to shut the f*** up for at least 48 hours, unless you want to see this story running for weeks.
They were fighting with Team GB's Olympics homecoming yesterday, today they're literally up against an earthquake yet are just as determined to lead the news again.
Labour's chances at the next election are being chuffed to bits.
The disappointing aspect of this is there is a proper serious debate to be had about transport provision in this country and in their own ways Corbyn and Branson have undermined that debate.
What sort of debate is Corbyn's 'we'll nationalise it'?
How does that explain how there'll be more trains and more seats?
In contrast, Virgin:
On the East Coast route, £140m is being invested to create a more personalised travel experience. We have already invested £21m to completely revamp our existing fleet and customers can now benefit from 42 additional services (22,000 extra seats) per week between Edinburgh and London. 2018 will see the introduction of completely new Azuma trains being built in the UK by Hitachi.
Virgin's "investments" are irrelevant - they will have priced those in by offering lower franchise premise. In any case, most of them were mandated as part of the franchise specification.
Smith's pitch to the 48% is quite clever if he believes that he won't actually have to deliver on a second referendum. Realistically, Brexit should be a done deal by May 2020, for good or bad. He can shout and promise whatever he wants, and as long as the PM doesn't go to the country early, Smith will never face the uncertainties, division and chaos that a second referendum would undoubtedly bring.
Will he offer a cast iron guarantee? That went well for another leader in recent times!
Smith's position on a second referendum is nonsense. He says he wants to block A50 unless there is a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations. But A50 is a commitment to leave within two years and must be served before any agreement can be considered. Once A50 has expired the only issue is whether to leave with the agreement secured during the two year negotiating window or to leave with no agreement at all. Smith is disingenuously implying that a post negotiation referendum would be a rerun of leave/remain when that could not be the case.
< What sort of debate is Corbyn's 'we'll nationalise it'?
How does that explain how there'll be more trains and more seats?
In contrast, Virgin:
On the East Coast route, £140m is being invested to create a more personalised travel experience. We have already invested £21m to completely revamp our existing fleet and customers can now benefit from 42 additional services (22,000 extra seats) per week between Edinburgh and London. 2018 will see the introduction of completely new Azuma trains being built in the UK by Hitachi.
Simply providing longer trains and more seats is akin to putting extra lanes on the M25 - it's a stopgap solution. The real problem is one of capacity at key points on the rail network - the scandal of the unused Eurostar platforms at Waterloo which have been left idle for years (work has finally started) while the South West Trains network runs close to peak hour capacity and the potential of a service from south east London direct to Waterloo left on the shelf.
There are improvements and a lot is happening but how much of that is down to the rail companies and how much to Network Rail I don't know. The problem is it has to keep happening - I'm travelling to Warwick on Friday and will be interested in that journey to see how well it functions.
Smith's pitch to the 48% is quite clever if he believes that he won't actually have to deliver on a second referendum. Realistically, Brexit should be a done deal by May 2020, for good or bad. He can shout and promise whatever he wants, and as long as the PM doesn't go to the country early, Smith will never face the uncertainties, division and chaos that a second referendum would undoubtedly bring.
Will he offer a cast iron guarantee? That went well for another leader in recent times!
But wouldn't most of the divisions be within the Labour Party? Both the pre-existing split between membership and voter base, and what would be a new split between Revisionists - who'd be seeking to overturn the original decision - and Mandatories, who'd believe that the decision has been made, the the government has the authority to get on with it and that any attempt to revisit the issue in the absence of a profound change in circumstances would be undemocratic.
Whether or not he has to deliver, I will certainly be advocating here in Wakefield that if Smith wins, we make something of the European question - the key point being not the issue itself but the disconnect in values between Smith and the people he expects to vote for him.
I'd have thought you'd be more worried about the divisions in the Conservative Party. A lot of Conservative voters voted REMAIN and probably don't want the "hard Brexit" some in the Party are proposing. One litmus test will be the future relationship between the City and the EU.
Don't you think that recent Russian posturing, and Trump's wavering on the Baltics also play a role?
If you were sitting in Berlin or Riga, and you were looking at a more aggressive Russia and a more isolationist USA, what other options do you think are on the table?
Saw Owen Smith on BBC this morning. All over the place. It is a ridiculous election brought about by apparent imcompetence of everyone, not least the Deputy Leader. At least they will unify in a months time. Is David Milliband waiting in the wings. Problem no chance of being elected by the current membership. This should present an opportunity for the Lib Dems if they play it right and get the right breaks. Tuition fees is more associated with Clegg than the party so they have a chance.
Smith's pitch to the 48% is quite clever if he believes that he won't actually have to deliver on a second referendum. Realistically, Brexit should be a done deal by May 2020, for good or bad. He can shout and promise whatever he wants, and as long as the PM doesn't go to the country early, Smith will never face the uncertainties, division and chaos that a second referendum would undoubtedly bring.
Will he offer a cast iron guarantee? That went well for another leader in recent times!
Smith's position on a second referendum is nonsense. He says he wants to block A50 unless there is a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations. But A50 is a commitment to leave within two years and must be served before any agreement can be considered. Once A50 has expired the only issue is whether to leave with the agreement secured during the two year negotiating window or to leave with no agreement at all. Smith is disingenuously implying that a post negotiation referendum would be a rerun of leave/remain when that could not be the case.
There are some basic negotiation heuristics. A fundamental one is ensuring your counterparty has the authority to honour any agreement reached, otherwise it's a pointless waste of resources. Smith doesn't seem to understand that.
Saw Owen Smith on BBC this morning. All over the place. It is a ridiculous election brought about by apparent imcompetence of everyone, not least the Deputy Leader. At least they will unify in a months time. Is David Milliband waiting in the wings. Problem no chance of being elected by the current membership. This should present an opportunity for the Lib Dems if they play it right and get the right breaks. Tuition fees is more associated with Clegg than the party so they have a chance.
Apart from the fact they have just 8 MPS, their activists are getting old and are pretty much moribund in large swathes of the UK.
Smith's pitch to the 48% is quite clever if he believes that he won't actually have to deliver on a second referendum. Realistically, Brexit should be a done deal by May 2020, for good or bad. He can shout and promise whatever he wants, and as long as the PM doesn't go to the country early, Smith will never face the uncertainties, division and chaos that a second referendum would undoubtedly bring.
Will he offer a cast iron guarantee? That went well for another leader in recent times!
Smith's position on a second referendum is nonsense. He says he wants to block A50 unless there is a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations. But A50 is a commitment to leave within two years and must be served before any agreement can be considered. Once A50 has expired the only issue is whether to leave with the agreement secured during the two year negotiating window or to leave with no agreement at all. Smith is disingenuously implying that a post negotiation referendum would be a rerun of leave/remain when that could not be the case.
There are some basic negotiation heuristics. A fundamental one is assuring your counterparty has the authority to honour any agreement reached, otherwise it's a pointless waste of resources. Smith doesn't seem to understand that.
His position on EU Ref 2 is entirely about winning the race against Corbo.
But wouldn't most of the divisions be within the Labour Party? Both the pre-existing split between membership and voter base, and what would be a new split between Revisionists - who'd be seeking to overturn the original decision - and Mandatories, who'd believe that the decision has been made, the the government has the authority to get on with it and that any attempt to revisit the issue in the absence of a profound change in circumstances would be undemocratic.
Whether or not he has to deliver, I will certainly be advocating here in Wakefield that if Smith wins, we make something of the European question - the key point being not the issue itself but the disconnect in values between Smith and the people he expects to vote for him.
I'd have thought you'd be more worried about the divisions in the Conservative Party. A lot of Conservative voters voted REMAIN and probably don't want the "hard Brexit" some in the Party are proposing. One litmus test will be the future relationship between the City and the EU.
I'm not sure the kind of Brexit is massively important to most Tory voters. But it will be to donors, particularly what happens with the City.
Smith's pitch to the 48% is quite clever if he believes that he won't actually have to deliver on a second referendum. Realistically, Brexit should be a done deal by May 2020, for good or bad. He can shout and promise whatever he wants, and as long as the PM doesn't go to the country early, Smith will never face the uncertainties, division and chaos that a second referendum would undoubtedly bring.
Will he offer a cast iron guarantee? That went well for another leader in recent times!
Smith's position on a second referendum is nonsense. He says he wants to block A50 unless there is a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations. But A50 is a commitment to leave within two years and must be served before any agreement can be considered. Once A50 has expired the only issue is whether to leave with the agreement secured during the two year negotiating window or to leave with no agreement at all. Smith is disingenuously implying that a post negotiation referendum would be a rerun of leave/remain when that could not be the case.
There are some basic negotiation heuristics. A fundamental one is assuring your counterparty has the authority to honour any agreement reached, otherwise it's a pointless waste of resources. Smith doesn't seem to understand that.
His position on EU Ref 2 is entirely about winning the race against Corbo.
It is sensible enough in that context.
If Jezza was up to it, he would invoke, as John Humphries did this morning, the WWC Labour Leave vote. Would make him look thrice genuine, honest, sincere, fighting the good fight against the man.
Don't you think that recent Russian posturing, and Trump's wavering on the Baltics also play a role?
If you were sitting in Berlin or Riga, and you were looking at a more aggressive Russia and a more isolationist USA, what other options do you think are on the table?
Germany could bump it's defence spending from its current 1.19% (per NATO's 2016 figures). Only four European NATO members meet the 2% - Estonia, UK, Greece and Poland. NATO is moribund.
Smith's pitch to the 48% is quite clever if he believes that he won't actually have to deliver on a second referendum. Realistically, Brexit should be a done deal by May 2020, for good or bad. He can shout and promise whatever he wants, and as long as the PM doesn't go to the country early, Smith will never face the uncertainties, division and chaos that a second referendum would undoubtedly bring.
Will he offer a cast iron guarantee? That went well for another leader in recent times!
Smith's position on a second referendum is nonsense. He says he wants to block A50 unless there is a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations. But A50 is a commitment to leave within two years and must be served before any agreement can be considered. Once A50 has expired the only issue is whether to leave with the agreement secured during the two year negotiating window or to leave with no agreement at all. Smith is disingenuously implying that a post negotiation referendum would be a rerun of leave/remain when that could not be the case.
There are some basic negotiation heuristics. A fundamental one is assuring your counterparty has the authority to honour any agreement reached, otherwise it's a pointless waste of resources. Smith doesn't seem to understand that.
His position on EU Ref 2 is entirely about winning the race against Corbo.
It is sensible enough in that context.
If Jezza was up to it, he would invoke, as John Humphries did this morning, the WWC Labour Leave vote. Would make him look thrice genuine, honest, sincere, fighting the good fight against the man.
Jeremy has his working class cap/hat thing. He wears it quite often.
Don't you think that recent Russian posturing, and Trump's wavering on the Baltics also play a role?
If you were sitting in Berlin or Riga, and you were looking at a more aggressive Russia and a more isolationist USA, what other options do you think are on the table?
If I were in Berlin or Riga I'd begin paying my way within NATO so that if the US does temporarily withdraw or suspend its membership then it wouldn't be too much of an issue. I certainly wouldn't be looking to hand over military policy to Brussels on the basis of making budget cuts and cost savings. That's really what this boils down to, the European nations want to be protected and they want someone else (US, UK, France) to pay the bills. I don't see how an EU army would help with security, if anything it will make it tougher since unanimity would surely be required to commit forces to any conflict. What is in the interests of, say, Poland may not be in the interests of Portugal. At least in NATO there are collective action clauses and the ability to act unilaterally. An EU army would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
Let's get one thing straight once and for all. Thatcher did not destroy the coal industry. Labour and Wilson closed twice as many mines in half the time taken by Thatcher. It is also said Thatcher destroyed industry however a quick check will show the decline was worst before and after her premiership.
It matters not its keeps getting said this is what happened just google it for 30 seconds and you will see for yourself.
Is it correct that Thatcher turned more Grammar schools into Comprehensives than any other education secretary?
Shirley Williams started the process and Thatcher in her latter years was a staunch grammar supporter
That cannot be true. Thatcher was Education Secretary from June 1970 to March 1974 . Shirley Williams held the same office from April 1976 until May 1979. I believe that the process actually began under Anthony Crosland in the mid-1960s.
Smith's pitch to the 48% is quite clever if he believes that he won't actually have to deliver on a second referendum. Realistically, Brexit should be a done deal by May 2020, for good or bad. He can shout and promise whatever he wants, and as long as the PM doesn't go to the country early, Smith will never face the uncertainties, division and chaos that a second referendum would undoubtedly bring.
Will he offer a cast iron guarantee? That went well for another leader in recent times!
Smith's position on a second referendum is nonsense. He says he wants to block A50 unless there is a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations. But A50 is a commitment to leave within two years and must be served before any agreement can be considered. Once A50 has expired the only issue is whether to leave with the agreement secured during the two year negotiating window or to leave with no agreement at all. Smith is disingenuously implying that a post negotiation referendum would be a rerun of leave/remain when that could not be the case.
There are some basic negotiation heuristics. A fundamental one is assuring your counterparty has the authority to honour any agreement reached, otherwise it's a pointless waste of resources. Smith doesn't seem to understand that.
Smith understands it quite well. The Labour selectorate won't by and large and will like what he's saying, which is why he's saying it.
Moreover, since A50 will have long since been evoked by the time of the next general election, unless May goes early to exploit a Corbyn-led Labour meltdown, Smith is managing to make a short term appeal to the Labour selectorate in such a way that would not prevent Labour from backing off on the EU after recognising that Brexit is a done deal at the time of the next election, were he then to be leading the party.
Saw Owen Smith on BBC this morning. All over the place. It is a ridiculous election brought about by apparent imcompetence of everyone, not least the Deputy Leader. At least they will unify in a months time. Is David Milliband waiting in the wings. Problem no chance of being elected by the current membership. This should present an opportunity for the Lib Dems if they play it right and get the right breaks. Tuition fees is more associated with Clegg than the party so they have a chance.
Apart from the fact they have just 8 MPS, their activists are getting old and are pretty much moribund in large swathes of the UK.
Sadly I suspect D Miliband now represents precisely everything the newer Lab members hate most in politics: social democrat, Blairite, was a SPAD, interested in the centre ground/triangulation, knows Hillary Clinton well, wants to win elections, understands power, policy and its actual development, Iraq war voter etc etc.
No chance.
Good article btw in yesterday's FT by Gideon Rachman about the state of main opposition parties in UK and USA and dire consequences for good government. Labour members should read and be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Smith's pitch to the 48% is quite clever if he believes that he won't actually have to deliver on a second referendum. Realistically, Brexit should be a done deal by May 2020, for good or bad. He can shout and promise whatever he wants, and as long as the PM doesn't go to the country early, Smith will never face the uncertainties, division and chaos that a second referendum would undoubtedly bring.
Will he offer a cast iron guarantee? That went well for another leader in recent times!
Smith's position on a second referendum is nonsense. He says he wants to block A50 unless there is a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations. But A50 is a commitment to leave within two years and must be served before any agreement can be considered. Once A50 has expired the only issue is whether to leave with the agreement secured during the two year negotiating window or to leave with no agreement at all. Smith is disingenuously implying that a post negotiation referendum would be a rerun of leave/remain when that could not be the case.
There are some basic negotiation heuristics. A fundamental one is assuring your counterparty has the authority to honour any agreement reached, otherwise it's a pointless waste of resources. Smith doesn't seem to understand that.
His position on EU Ref 2 is entirely about winning the race against Corbo.
It is sensible enough in that context.
If Jezza was up to it, he would invoke, as John Humphries did this morning, the WWC Labour Leave vote. Would make him look thrice genuine, honest, sincere, fighting the good fight against the man.
Jeremy has his working class cap/hat thing. He wears it quite often.
Yeah true. I suppose I meant British, not Soviet WWC.
Smith's pitch to the 48% is quite clever if he believes that he won't actually have to deliver on a second referendum. Realistically, Brexit should be a done deal by May 2020, for good or bad. He can shout and promise whatever he wants, and as long as the PM doesn't go to the country early, Smith will never face the uncertainties, division and chaos that a second referendum would undoubtedly bring.
Will he offer a cast iron guarantee? That went well for another leader in recent times!
Smith's position on a second referendum is nonsense. He says he wants to block A50 unless there is a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations. But A50 is a commitment to leave within two years and must be served before any agreement can be considered. Once A50 has expired the only issue is whether to leave with the agreement secured during the two year negotiating window or to leave with no agreement at all. Smith is disingenuously implying that a post negotiation referendum would be a rerun of leave/remain when that could not be the case.
There are some basic negotiation heuristics. A fundamental one is assuring your counterparty has the authority to honour any agreement reached, otherwise it's a pointless waste of resources. Smith doesn't seem to understand that.
His position on EU Ref 2 is entirely about winning the race against Corbo.
It is sensible enough in that context.
If Jezza was up to it, he would invoke, as John Humphries did this morning, the WWC Labour Leave vote. Would make him look thrice genuine, honest, sincere, fighting the good fight against the man.
Labour members are majority remain. We are back to the joyful situation -
Labour leadership isn't the PLP but close to its membership. PLP is no longer close to its membership. No part of the Labour party is close to their (former) WWC voters. The PLP is nearer than the leadership and the membership to that WWC vote but not close to the leave portion of that vote.
Smith's pitch to the 48% is quite clever if he believes that he won't actually have to deliver on a second referendum. Realistically, Brexit should be a done deal by May 2020, for good or bad. He can shout and promise whatever he wants, and as long as the PM doesn't go to the country early, Smith will never face the uncertainties, division and chaos that a second referendum would undoubtedly bring.
Will he offer a cast iron guarantee? That went well for another leader in recent times!
Smith's position on a second referendum is nonsense. He says he wants to block A50 unless there is a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations. But A50 is a commitment to leave within two years and must be served before any agreement can be considered. Once A50 has expired the only issue is whether to leave with the agreement secured during the two year negotiating window or to leave with no agreement at all. Smith is disingenuously implying that a post negotiation referendum would be a rerun of leave/remain when that could not be the case.
There are some basic negotiation heuristics. A fundamental one is assuring your counterparty has the authority to honour any agreement reached, otherwise it's a pointless waste of resources. Smith doesn't seem to understand that.
Smith understands it quite well. The Labour selectorate won't by and large and will like what he's saying, which is why he's saying it.
Moreover, since A50 will have long since been evoked by the time of the next general election, unless May goes early to exploit a Corbyn-led Labour meltdown, Smith is managing to make a short term appeal to the Labour selectorate in such a way that would not prevent Labour from backing off on the EU after recognising that Brexit is a done deal at the time of the next election, were he then to be leading the party.
Indeed. It could be a shrewd move, assuming he was able to avoid too much blowback from Leaver Labourites down the line for the stance he takes right now.
Saw Owen Smith on BBC this morning. All over the place. It is a ridiculous election brought about by apparent imcompetence of everyone, not least the Deputy Leader. At least they will unify in a months time. Is David Milliband waiting in the wings. Problem no chance of being elected by the current membership. This should present an opportunity for the Lib Dems if they play it right and get the right breaks. Tuition fees is more associated with Clegg than the party so they have a chance.
Apart from the fact they have just 8 MPS, their activists are getting old and are pretty much moribund in large swathes of the UK.
Sadly I suspect D Miliband now represents precisely everything the newer Lab members hate most in politics: social democrat, Blairite, was a SPAD, interested in the centre ground/triangulation, knows Hillary Clinton well, wants to win elections, understands power, policy and its actual development, Iraq war voter etc etc.
No chance.
Good article btw in yesterday's FT by Gideon Rachman about the state of main opposition parties in UK and USA and dire consequences for good government. Labour members should read and be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
I'm half hoping he gets a job in Hillary's cabinet, I've benefitted from the optimism of his backers nicely on Betfair - for them to be able to see reality so I can buy him back at the right price would be nice in the next yeaar or so too.
Don't you think that recent Russian posturing, and Trump's wavering on the Baltics also play a role?
If you were sitting in Berlin or Riga, and you were looking at a more aggressive Russia and a more isolationist USA, what other options do you think are on the table?
Germany could bump it's defence spending from its current 1.19% (per NATO's 2016 figures). Only four European NATO members meet the 2% - Estonia, UK, Greece and Poland. NATO is moribund.
I'm not quite sure why the Germans are so reluctant to do it. What do other EU countries think? Maybe it's still a no-no. And if they want to be the dominant player in European politics it's kind o odd that they wouldn't be prepared to have a decent military.
Don't you think that recent Russian posturing, and Trump's wavering on the Baltics also play a role?
If you were sitting in Berlin or Riga, and you were looking at a more aggressive Russia and a more isolationist USA, what other options do you think are on the table?
Germany could bump it's defence spending from its current 1.19% (per NATO's 2016 figures). Only four European NATO members meet the 2% - Estonia, UK, Greece and Poland. NATO is moribund.
I'm not quite sure why the Germans are so reluctant to do it. What do other EU countries think? Maybe it's still a no-no. And if they want to be the dominant player in European politics it's kind o odd that they wouldn't be prepared to have a decent military.
Smith's pitch to the 48% is quite clever if he believes that he won't actually have to deliver on a second referendum. Realistically, Brexit should be a done deal by May 2020, for good or bad. He can shout and promise whatever he wants, and as long as the PM doesn't go to the country early, Smith will never face the uncertainties, division and chaos that a second referendum would undoubtedly bring.
Will he offer a cast iron guarantee? That went well for another leader in recent times!
Smith's position on a second referendum is nonsense. He says he wants to block A50 unless there is a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations. But A50 is a commitment to leave within two years and must be served before any agreement can be considered. Once A50 has expired the only issue is whether to leave with the agreement secured during the two year negotiating window or to leave with no agreement at all. Smith is disingenuously implying that a post negotiation referendum would be a rerun of leave/remain when that could not be the case.
There are some basic negotiation heuristics. A fundamental one is assuring your counterparty has the authority to honour any agreement reached, otherwise it's a pointless waste of resources. Smith doesn't seem to understand that.
His position on EU Ref 2 is entirely about winning the race against Corbo.
It is sensible enough in that context.
If Jezza was up to it, he would invoke, as John Humphries did this morning, the WWC Labour Leave vote. Would make him look thrice genuine, honest, sincere, fighting the good fight against the man.
Jeremy has his working class cap/hat thing. He wears it quite often.
It's more a Leninist cap thing isn't it, much favoured by aging, middle class art teachers/lecturers in my experience.
You want yer tweed bunnet for inauthentic WWC appeal.
But wouldn't most of the divisions be within the Labour Party? Both the pre-existing split between membership and voter base, and what would be a new split between Revisionists - who'd be seeking to overturn the original decision - and Mandatories, who'd believe that the decision has been made, the the government has the authority to get on with it and that any attempt to revisit the issue in the absence of a profound change in circumstances would be undemocratic.
Whether or not he has to deliver, I will certainly be advocating here in Wakefield that if Smith wins, we make something of the European question - the key point being not the issue itself but the disconnect in values between Smith and the people he expects to vote for him.
I'd have thought you'd be more worried about the divisions in the Conservative Party. A lot of Conservative voters voted REMAIN and probably don't want the "hard Brexit" some in the Party are proposing. One litmus test will be the future relationship between the City and the EU.
The divisions will play out in the Party before then, while negotiations are underway. But as the negotiations will happen after Art 50 is triggered, the only options would be to agree to it or to leave in chaos, so no matter what the recriminations about the specific deal, virtually everyone will sign up to it because there won't be a realistic alternative. If there is real opposition to any specific measure, that'll have already made itself felt by that point.
But the party and - I suspect - Conservative voters in the country are largely content with Leave in principle now. Most voted that way anyway and a lot of Leavers, like me, recognise that it was the will of the public and that that should be respected. The rest follows fairly naturally. We can't be part of the Single Market or customs union because that'd mean having to be remain in effect within the EU structures. The question is about the terms of access to the Market - but that's something that countries all across the world negotiate on and the UK can come to its own arrangement.
There will be pressure from some for a Hard Brexit. it might even make sense. Much depends on Juncker, Merkel, Hollande and their potential successors. Fact is that if freedom of movement genuinely is a non-negotiable for the EU, then a Hard Exit it will have to be. That kind of thinking would kill the EU because it's so far removed from what the voting publics want. However, when the tough talking begins, I don't think it will be a non-negotiable; we'll just need a quid pro quo in return.
Don't you think that recent Russian posturing, and Trump's wavering on the Baltics also play a role?
If you were sitting in Berlin or Riga, and you were looking at a more aggressive Russia and a more isolationist USA, what other options do you think are on the table?
Germany could bump it's defence spending from its current 1.19% (per NATO's 2016 figures). Only four European NATO members meet the 2% - Estonia, UK, Greece and Poland. NATO is moribund.
I'm not quite sure why the Germans are so reluctant to do it. What do other EU countries think? Maybe it's still a no-no. And if they want to be the dominant player in European politics it's kind o odd that they wouldn't be prepared to have a decent military.
More money to spend on other stuff.
Germany already run a public sector surplus and have a massive trade surplus. Stiglitiz is excoriating them in his latest tome.
@SteveDoherty1: Corbyn defender on @BBCr4today said he’d had “a long day” and “wanted to get his head down”. It was 11 o’clock in the morning.
Team Corbyn seem determined to keep this story running for another cycle
They aren't very good at this lying thing are they.
Also, I see David Miliband name gets a mention again. He might be better than Jezza and Smith, but he was useless in government. I don't understand where this theory he is some sort of political giant that will batter the Tories comes from.
There will be pressure from some for a Hard Brexit. it might even make sense. Much depends on Juncker, Merkel, Hollande and their potential successors. Fact is that if freedom of movement genuinely is a non-negotiable for the EU, then a Hard Exit it will have to be. That kind of thinking would kill the EU because it's so far removed from what the voting publics want. However, when the tough talking begins, I don't think it will be a non-negotiable; we'll just need a quid pro quo in return.
Saw Owen Smith on BBC this morning. All over the place. It is a ridiculous election brought about by apparent imcompetence of everyone, not least the Deputy Leader. At least they will unify in a months time. Is David Milliband waiting in the wings. Problem no chance of being elected by the current membership. This should present an opportunity for the Lib Dems if they play it right and get the right breaks. Tuition fees is more associated with Clegg than the party so they have a chance.
Apart from the fact they have just 8 MPS, their activists are getting old and are pretty much moribund in large swathes of the UK.
Sadly I suspect D Miliband now represents precisely everything the newer Lab members hate most in politics: social democrat, Blairite, was a SPAD, interested in the centre ground/triangulation, knows Hillary Clinton well, wants to win elections, understands power, policy and its actual development, Iraq war voter etc etc.
No chance.
Good article btw in yesterday's FT by Gideon Rachman about the state of main opposition parties in UK and USA and dire consequences for good government. Labour members should read and be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
I'm not sure Social Democrat is so terrible but the other stuff Blairite/SPAD etc won't help him. Nice to know you don't think the Tories are capable of governing successfully without a decent Labour opposition.
Smith's position on the referendum makes him even worse than Corbyn in my book. Is there a market on Corbyn's margin of victory? 70-30 looks appealing.
@Wulfrun_Phil I think you missed my gentle sarcasm. If losing seats from a low base is a success, Corbyn will be very successful. The most successful, indeed, since HeNderson's memorable loss of 178 or 231 seats (depending on how it's counted) in 1931. Yes, the sort of second attempt at couponing magnified Labour's losses (I think the final outcome was something like 556 National and 100-odd others) but that wasn't actually that unusual in that period (cf 1906 and 1910, 1918).
@Paul_Bedfordshire I agree about vertical integration. But if over a million passengers a year is not a viable route, something is wrong somewhere.
@AlistairM very good! How about Corbyn and his supporters being decoupled from reality?
Alas that works out at 20,000 a week or 2,900 a day. Also many of the passengers wont travel the whole line just part of it with a good few making short local journeys with correspondingly low fare.
Also you could keep a good proportion of the passengers- the more lucrative longer distance ones - by running leeds to carlisle trains via Giggleswick if you closed it.
Imagine if you built a high spec road for 70 miles through the pennines and the only traffic on it was a bus every half hour each way. - which would take the same number of passengers as the train gets comfortably - Economics of the madhouse.
So long as there is freight traffic to pay for the infrastructure the passenger train operating costs ought to be near break even but without a goodly amount of freight it is a basket case.
I wouldn't expect a major political impact in Italy, unless their government badly mishandles the aftermath. However, prominent assistance from the UK might have some impact on the Brexit negotiations.
Will they all be sleeping in tents liken they're on holiday?
@SteveDoherty1: Corbyn defender on @BBCr4today said he’d had “a long day” and “wanted to get his head down”. It was 11 o’clock in the morning.
Team Corbyn seem determined to keep this story running for another cycle
They aren't very good at this lying thing are they.
Also, I see David Miliband name gets a mention again. He might be better than Jezza and Smith, but he was useless in government. I don't understand where this theory he is some sort of political giant that will batter the Tories comes from.
A general rule of thumb is that when pundits or activists are talking about the next leader being someone who has already left the scene, then the party in question poses no threat to anyone. There was always a reason why they left and the best that they might be able to offer is to arrest a decline (not that Miliband would - he has far too much history that runs far too counter to the current Labour party to be able to act as a stabilising force).
You could keep a good proportion of the passengers- the more lucrative longer distance ones - by running leeds to carlisle trains via Giggleswick if you closed it.
You would keep a good proportion of the through passengers on one of the North-West's most popular tourist lines if you sent them via Giggleswick?
< What sort of debate is Corbyn's 'we'll nationalise it'?
How does that explain how there'll be more trains and more seats?
In contrast, Virgin:
On the East Coast route, £140m is being invested to create a more personalised travel experience. We have already invested £21m to completely revamp our existing fleet and customers can now benefit from 42 additional services (22,000 extra seats) per week between Edinburgh and London. 2018 will see the introduction of completely new Azuma trains being built in the UK by Hitachi.
Simply providing longer trains and more seats is akin to putting extra lanes on the M25 - it's a stopgap solution. The real problem is one of capacity at key points on the rail network - the scandal of the unused Eurostar platforms at Waterloo which have been left idle for years (work has finally started) while the South West Trains network runs close to peak hour capacity and the potential of a service from south east London direct to Waterloo left on the shelf.
There are improvements and a lot is happening but how much of that is down to the rail companies and how much to Network Rail I don't know. The problem is it has to keep happening - I'm travelling to Warwick on Friday and will be interested in that journey to see how well it functions.
Yes we have replaced predict and provide on the roads with predict and provide on the railway and doubled the passengers. We havent even charged them a viable fare as the doubling of passengers has resulted in a doubling of government subsidy.
(actually its worse than that as the network has nowhere near doubled in size or anything like it. Most of the extra passengers have been accomodated by sweating existing assets so the doubling of subsidy means that the network is grossly inefficient compared with BR.
Don't you think that recent Russian posturing, and Trump's wavering on the Baltics also play a role?
If you were sitting in Berlin or Riga, and you were looking at a more aggressive Russia and a more isolationist USA, what other options do you think are on the table?
If I were in Berlin or Riga I'd begin paying my way within NATO so that if the US does temporarily withdraw or suspend its membership then it wouldn't be too much of an issue. I certainly wouldn't be looking to hand over military policy to Brussels on the basis of making budget cuts and cost savings. That's really what this boils down to, the European nations want to be protected and they want someone else (US, UK, France) to pay the bills. I don't see how an EU army would help with security, if anything it will make it tougher since unanimity would surely be required to commit forces to any conflict. What is in the interests of, say, Poland may not be in the interests of Portugal. At least in NATO there are collective action clauses and the ability to act unilaterally. An EU army would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
The Baltics all do pay their 2% don't they?
I think your instinctive Euroscepticism (which I broadly applaud) means you tend to miss the limited strategic options of some countries. Simply put, the US is less likely to protect Europe than they used to. We're lucky; we're on the far Western edge of the continent. Others are not so fortunate.
Saw Owen Smith on BBC this morning. All over the place. It is a ridiculous election brought about by apparent imcompetence of everyone, not least the Deputy Leader. At least they will unify in a months time. Is David Milliband waiting in the wings. Problem no chance of being elected by the current membership. This should present an opportunity for the Lib Dems if they play it right and get the right breaks. Tuition fees is more associated with Clegg than the party so they have a chance.
Apart from the fact they have just 8 MPS, their activists are getting old and are pretty much moribund in large swathes of the UK.
Sadly I suspect D Miliband now represents precisely everything the newer Lab members hate most in politics: social democrat, Blairite, was a SPAD, interested in the centre ground/triangulation, knows Hillary Clinton well, wants to win elections, understands power, policy and its actual development, Iraq war voter etc etc.
No chance.
Good article btw in yesterday's FT by Gideon Rachman about the state of main opposition parties in UK and USA and dire consequences for good government. Labour members should read and be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
I'm not sure Social Democrat is so terrible but the other stuff Blairite/SPAD etc won't help him. Nice to know you don't think the Tories are capable of governing successfully without a decent Labour opposition.
Any government should have a functioning opposition, in a Parliamentary democracy it's the main way the people can hold them to account outside election times.
These figures show how being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland.
Scotland weathered a dramatic slump in oil revenues last year because we are part of a United Kingdom that has at its heart a system for pooling and sharing resources across the country as a whole.
It is important that continues and the financial deal between the UK and Scottish governments, struck last year as part of the transfer of new tax and welfare powers to Holyrood, means real security for Scotland.
The fact public spending was £1,200 per head higher in Scotland than the UK as a whole also demonstrates that the United Kingdom, not the European Union, is the vital union for Scotland’s prosperity.
PS - I wouldn't go back to BR given the choice. I would prefer to see regional companies owning both track and train giving the cost efficiency of vertical integration.
Running powers would cover through working onto other railways lines.
The viability problems get worse the further North you go though.
Would you deregulate the fares on the old Southern network? I pay £3,100 a year to commute from Woking, do you think the company should be allowed to set the price of such a ticket?
PS - I wouldn't go back to BR given the choice. I would prefer to see regional companies owning both track and train giving the cost efficiency of vertical integration.
BR was too large to be able to focus on development of secondary flows. Breaking up into smaller units has helped here.
Brexit will allow this and a start could be made by selling off the Southern Region (South West, Trains, Southern, Southeastern, Thameslink) which are not far off profitabilty and probably would be outright profitable with vertical integration and reformed labour practices (get shot of guards etc.).
Running powers would cover through working onto other railways lines.
The viability problems get worse the further North you go though.
Would you deregulate the fares on the old Southern network? I pay £3,100 a year to commute from Woking, do you think the company should be allowed to set the price of such a ticket?
The problem is that your season ticket is far too little to make the railway viable. It is at a huge discount on daily tickets and the problem is that to accomodate the peak hour commuters a huge amount of extra track and trains is needed that is used for six hours a day monday to friday and sits idle the rest of the time. And when they are in use half the time they are empty as after running to london in the morning they run virtually empty back to the suburbs to collect the next bunch of commuters - and vice versa in the evening.
Commuters season ticket prices dont come near to covering those costs and commuters are heavily subsidised by the other passengers having higher fares to compensate.
One thing the private companies have done well is maximise off peak revenue - not surprising as that is the only way they could make extra profits. They can also borrow to invest unlike BR who basically had a fixed income and had to cut services to meet a budget - even if it was a viable investment the government wouldnt let them borrow the money.
There will be pressure from some for a Hard Brexit. it might even make sense. Much depends on Juncker, Merkel, Hollande and their potential successors. Fact is that if freedom of movement genuinely is a non-negotiable for the EU, then a Hard Exit it will have to be. That kind of thinking would kill the EU because it's so far removed from what the voting publics want. However, when the tough talking begins, I don't think it will be a non-negotiable; we'll just need a quid pro quo in return.
Probably a few million quid pro quo...
a few million quid a week (to ensure we can spend £350M extra on the NHS)
But wouldn't most of the divisions be within the Labour Party? Both the pre-existing split between membership and voter base, and what would be a new split between Revisionists - who'd be seeking to overturn the original decision - and Mandatories, who'd believe that the decision has been made, the the government has the authority to get on with it and that any attempt to revisit the issue in the absence of a profound change in circumstances would be undemocratic.
Whether or not he has to deliver, I will certainly be advocating here in Wakefield that if Smith wins, we make something of the European question - the key point being not the issue itself but the disconnect in values between Smith and the people he expects to vote for him.
I'd have thought you'd be more worried about the divisions in the Conservative Party. A lot of Conservative voters voted REMAIN and probably don't want the "hard Brexit" some in the Party are proposing. One litmus test will be the future relationship between the City and the EU.
The divisions will play out in the Party before then, while negotiations are underway. But as the negotiations will happen after Art 50 is triggered, the only options would be to agree to it or to leave in chaos, so no matter what the recriminations about the specific deal, virtually everyone will sign up to it because there won't be a realistic alternative. If there is real opposition to any specific measure, that'll have already made itself felt by that point.
But the party and - I suspect - Conservative voters in the country are largely content with Leave in principle now. Most voted that way anyway and a lot of Leavers, like me, recognise that it was the will of the public and that that should be respected. The rest follows fairly naturally. We can't be part of the Single Market or customs union because that'd mean having to be remain in effect within the EU structures. The question is about the terms of access to the Market - but that's something that countries all across the world negotiate on and the UK can come to its own arrangement.
There will be pressure from some for a Hard Brexit. it might even make sense. Much depends on Juncker, Merkel, Hollande and their potential successors. Fact is that if freedom of movement genuinely is a non-negotiable for the EU, then a Hard Exit it will have to be. That kind of thinking would kill the EU because it's so far removed from what the voting publics want. However, when the tough talking begins, I don't think it will be a non-negotiable; we'll just need a quid pro quo in return.
Didn't you mean "a lot of Remainers, like me" in the second para?
Comments
BR was too large to be able to focus on development of secondary flows. Breaking up into smaller units has helped here.
Brexit will allow this and a start could be made by selling off the Southern Region (South West, Trains, Southern, Southeastern, Thameslink) which are not far off profitabilty and probably would be outright profitable with vertical integration and reformed labour practices (get shot of guards etc.).
Running powers would cover through working onto other railways lines.
The viability problems get worse the further North you go though.
On the latter point, currently Germany are the only nation who benefit from EMU policy, it puts southern Europe in a constant state of austerity which drives down the value of the Euro from necessity of QE. Until that changes Germany will not give up any advantage that delivers higher employment levels, growth and falling debt levels. As for Italy, it is time for Renzi to stand up and be counted, tell the commission to stick their banking regulations and rescue the banking sector, dare them to unwind it after it is done.
More seriously, this will be forgotten in a month as other things come along to other platforms.
Those who want a stick with which to beat Corbyn have their fun - it's all getting a bit boring and tiresome now. Smith is effectively the 2010s Kinnock - he was to take back control of the Party (if he can) and start it on the road back to Government because, to be honest, Labour are still the only alternative Government.
The disappointing aspect of this is there is a proper serious debate to be had about transport provision in this country and in their own ways Corbyn and Branson have undermined that debate.
And they wonder why we voted to leave?
On the current EU (of which we are still very much a member), the organisation is in a holding pattern a) because of Brexit which won't start until we trigger Article 50 and b) elections in France, Italy and Germany in the next 12-18 months which could very well mark a significant change in political direction with Hollande likely to be replaced by Juppe, Renzi looking in trouble and even Merkel not guaranteed to have the same authority she enjoys now.
@Wulfrun_Phil I think you missed my gentle sarcasm. If losing seats from a low base is a success, Corbyn will be very successful. The most successful, indeed, since HeNderson's memorable loss of 178 or 231 seats (depending on how it's counted) in 1931. Yes, the sort of second attempt at couponing magnified Labour's losses (I think the final outcome was something like 556 National and 100-odd others) but that wasn't actually that unusual in that period (cf 1906 and 1910, 1918).
@Paul_Bedfordshire I agree about vertical integration. But if over a million passengers a year is not a viable route, something is wrong somewhere.
@AlistairM very good! How about Corbyn and his supporters being decoupled from reality?
As Norwich wrote of the Byzantines, they preferred the Sultan's turban to the cardinal's hat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/past-politicians-were-much-worse-than-todays-t308jm5fd
They need to start by breaking the Rail Unions, though.
£3100 for a full season ticket is around £6.00-6.50 each way for a journey of 25 miles or so if you travel nearly all weekdays, which is not expensive imo. That is the same as a 15-17 mile car journey at 40p per mile anywhere in the country.
Then you get unlimited weekend travel into London for free.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/show-of-force-may-become-smokescreen-for-defence-cuts-9xgxgkp7d
The EU only has the capacity to do continuing long term electoral damage to Labour if people especially working class people continue to care about the issue. Yet by 2020 Brexit will be a done deal regardless of what Smith says or Labour does in the meantime. Unless Brexit has gone incredibly badly, the question of the UK rejoining the EU will by 2020 be about as relevant to political debate as is currently the question of whether the UK should join the Euro in 2016.
We knew that within days or weeks of his being elected last year, when he swerved awkward questions by answering something else. Just like Blair with a beard.
Corbyn's "Straight, honest politics" slogan was always a lie.
How does that explain how there'll be more trains and more seats?
In contrast, Virgin:
On the East Coast route, £140m is being invested to create a more personalised travel experience. We have already invested £21m to completely revamp our existing fleet and customers can now benefit from 42 additional services (22,000 extra seats) per week between Edinburgh and London. 2018 will see the introduction of completely new Azuma trains being built in the UK by Hitachi.
https://www.virgintrains.co.uk/about/media-room/#/pressreleases/virgin-trains-clarifies-labour-leaders-claim-of-ram-packed-service-1530005
Team Corbyn seem determined to keep this story running for another cycle
But I think it'll take quite a few more examples like this before it sinks through - his other flaws are in fact strengths to many of his supporters, and this is the first 'same as the rest' thing that I recall getting some major press, and even then because it is silly season.
It is a morsel of old socialist meat to throw to the dogs to keep them quiet. Mr Corbyn may or may not believe it, but he is reckless to the consequences.
I'd identify others:
Fox hunting for Blair.
Independent schools, and a nationalised education system.
Recently opposition to the mythical privatisation of the NHS, and "toff" bankers.
It is about appealing to the neanderthal sub-brain of his supporters.
We voted Out.
It is a disaster policy and US generals must be tearing their hair out at the moment with Trump on one side and the EU on the other side.
But time has a well know anti-Corbyn bias. Plus Jeremy works all hours of the night for the people, so he's tired at that hour.
Mr. Max (2)/Mr. M, at the risk of being repetitive, the EU is thick and is institutionally flawed.
Mr. Topping, my favourite spoiler complaint was of a historical game (not WWII, though) when some people complained the ending had been given away. [I do think spoilers generally are the work of Satan, but people whining because others note Napoleon didn't win is a bit silly].
Whether or not he has to deliver, I will certainly be advocating here in Wakefield that if Smith wins, we make something of the European question - the key point being not the issue itself but the disconnect in values between Smith and the people he expects to vote for him.
Edit - no, sorry, that would be impossible, they've been insisting for 201 years that he did win.
They were fighting with Team GB's Olympics homecoming yesterday, today they're literally up against an earthquake yet are just as determined to lead the news again.
There are improvements and a lot is happening but how much of that is down to the rail companies and how much to Network Rail I don't know. The problem is it has to keep happening - I'm travelling to Warwick on Friday and will be interested in that journey to see how well it functions.
Don't you think that recent Russian posturing, and Trump's wavering on the Baltics also play a role?
If you were sitting in Berlin or Riga, and you were looking at a more aggressive Russia and a more isolationist USA, what other options do you think are on the table?
At least they will unify in a months time.
Is David Milliband waiting in the wings. Problem no chance of being elected by the current membership.
This should present an opportunity for the Lib Dems if they play it right and get the right breaks. Tuition fees is more associated with Clegg than the party so they have a chance.
Beware squirrels throwing turnips...
It is sensible enough in that context.
#GERS shows Scottish tax revenue now £400 per head less than in UK, yet spending £1200 per head more in Scotland
Moreover, since A50 will have long since been evoked by the time of the next general election, unless May goes early to exploit a Corbyn-led Labour meltdown, Smith is managing to make a short term appeal to the Labour selectorate in such a way that would not prevent Labour from backing off on the EU after recognising that Brexit is a done deal at the time of the next election, were he then to be leading the party.
No chance.
Good article btw in yesterday's FT by Gideon Rachman about the state of main opposition parties in UK and USA and dire consequences for good government. Labour members should read and be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Labour leadership isn't the PLP but close to its membership.
PLP is no longer close to its membership.
No part of the Labour party is close to their (former) WWC voters. The PLP is nearer than the leadership and the membership to that WWC vote but not close to the leave portion of that vote.
You want yer tweed bunnet for inauthentic WWC appeal.
http://tinyurl.com/zayjtq4
But the party and - I suspect - Conservative voters in the country are largely content with Leave in principle now. Most voted that way anyway and a lot of Leavers, like me, recognise that it was the will of the public and that that should be respected. The rest follows fairly naturally. We can't be part of the Single Market or customs union because that'd mean having to be remain in effect within the EU structures. The question is about the terms of access to the Market - but that's something that countries all across the world negotiate on and the UK can come to its own arrangement.
There will be pressure from some for a Hard Brexit. it might even make sense. Much depends on Juncker, Merkel, Hollande and their potential successors. Fact is that if freedom of movement genuinely is a non-negotiable for the EU, then a Hard Exit it will have to be. That kind of thinking would kill the EU because it's so far removed from what the voting publics want. However, when the tough talking begins, I don't think it will be a non-negotiable; we'll just need a quid pro quo in return.
Also, I see David Miliband name gets a mention again. He might be better than Jezza and Smith, but he was useless in government. I don't understand where this theory he is some sort of political giant that will batter the Tories comes from.
For Owen Jones.
Or something like that.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-traingate-lib-dems-troll-labour-leader-with-website-404-page-a3328051.html
Also you could keep a good proportion of the passengers- the more lucrative longer distance ones - by running leeds to carlisle trains via Giggleswick if you closed it.
Imagine if you built a high spec road for 70 miles through the pennines and the only traffic on it was a bus every half hour each way. - which would take the same number of passengers as the train gets comfortably - Economics of the madhouse.
So long as there is freight traffic to pay for the infrastructure the passenger train operating costs ought to be near break even but without a goodly amount of freight it is a basket case.
Well, it's a point of view...
Net fiscal deficit in Scotland now stands at nearly £15bn or 9.5% of GDP, more than twice that for UK as a whole https://t.co/4iH9p1P0y2
(actually its worse than that as the network has nowhere near doubled in size or anything like it. Most of the extra passengers have been accomodated by sweating existing assets so the doubling of subsidy means that the network is grossly inefficient compared with BR.
I think your instinctive Euroscepticism (which I broadly applaud) means you tend to miss the limited strategic options of some countries. Simply put, the US is less likely to protect Europe than they used to. We're lucky; we're on the far Western edge of the continent. Others are not so fortunate.
These figures show how being part of the UK protects living standards in Scotland.
Scotland weathered a dramatic slump in oil revenues last year because we are part of a United Kingdom that has at its heart a system for pooling and sharing resources across the country as a whole.
It is important that continues and the financial deal between the UK and Scottish governments, struck last year as part of the transfer of new tax and welfare powers to Holyrood, means real security for Scotland.
The fact public spending was £1,200 per head higher in Scotland than the UK as a whole also demonstrates that the United Kingdom, not the European Union, is the vital union for Scotland’s prosperity.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-expenditure-and-revenue-scotland-201516
Commuters season ticket prices dont come near to covering those costs and commuters are heavily subsidised by the other passengers having higher fares to compensate.
One thing the private companies have done well is maximise off peak revenue - not surprising as that is the only way they could make extra profits. They can also borrow to invest unlike BR who basically had a fixed income and had to cut services to meet a budget - even if it was a viable investment the government wouldnt let them borrow the money.