Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
How can you say that they have abandoned austerity when the deficit fell about £18bn in the last year alone? The downward slope to balance has got less steep but we are clearly still on it.
It's a statement of fact. The government has abandoned its previous deficit reduction programme.
No it hasn't. It has modified the time that will be taken to eliminate the deficit to give more support to the economy during Brexit, in the same way that Osborne did to offset serious economic weakness in the EZ during the Coalition. That is not abandonment of the objective or the recognition of the need to reduce debt as a share of GDP.
It's abandoning the objective to do it by x. I still have the broad objective to lose weight, but since I've mostly stopped any food discipline, I've abandoned the way I intended to achieve it.
The Dutch and German governments are not subsidising our rail network at all - they are making surpluses thanks to the vast taxpayer subsidy to franchisees. Hence our government is subsidising them. The level of ignorance on the shambles that is rail franchising may soon come to an end if it becomes an election issue!
Wow,labour playing a blinder on policies,leaked today for big coverage today and again next week when labours manifesto is released.
Got to give credit to labour,outperforming the tories so far in the build up(keep some of the shadow cabinet hidden though ;-) )
yup - that must be why they're so far ahead in the polls... oh... wait a minute.
Nevertheless, apart from the their slogan not being as clear as the Tories, labour have had a decent start. Their polling has picked up when some thought it would drop further, Corbyn himself has not messed up, and they've got their policies out there.
I'm curious - does anyone who actually travels by train think that rail nationalisation is a bad idea?
If so, do they use Southern????
Do you know how few people in the country travel regularly by train? the great majority of those who do are in SE England - an area where Labour may not make very many gains.
What Mrs May really needs is a few polls with the Tory lead down to single digits.
Or a good old Tory campaign coitus up.
Perhaps she can be recorded off mic calling voters thick, smelly, or bigots.
She already has a number of polls putting Labour on 31%, the same as last time. Confirms Nick Palmer's reports of the Labour vote holding steady.
I have to admit to being totally surprised that Labour is hitting circa 30% all the time now. They could 32-33 by the end of the campaign.
Actually, apart from Abbott's plane crash, things have gone relatively smoothly.
It's Corbyn's blue suit and haircut. A very talented stylist has transformed him and made him look like a politician so people are now listening to what he's saying
Wow,labour playing a blinder on policies,leaked today for big coverage today and again next week when labours manifesto is released.
Got to give credit to labour,outperforming the tories so far in the build up(keep some of the shadow cabinet hidden though ;-) )
yup - that must be why they're so far ahead in the polls... oh... wait a minute.
Nevertheless, apart from the their slogan not being as clear as the Tories, labour have had a decent start. Their polling has picked up when some thought it would drop further, Corbyn himself has not messed up, and they've got their policies out there.
Tories have also improved by about the same amount in the polls.
But, I also think a lot of people would view them as nice ideas but unaffordable.
I'm not sure about that. Labour proposed an energy freeze and the public didn't buy it because of the salesman. A new saleswoman and they don't worry about the economic damage it might cause.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
There is an extra £350 million per week for the NHS. A workers Brexit, not a Bosses Brexit, for the many not the few.
Implausible uncosted policies with no proper background work clinched it for Donald. Why not Jezza?
But Corbyn is proposing a Bosses Brexit - a Union Bosses Brexit to be precise.
Better than the alternative though.
Both the left and right extremes are a Fatcat Brexit - on the left for the public sector fatcats and union bosses on the right for bankers and CEOs - what we need is the middle course ie a people's brexit.
Both Fatcat Brexit extremes support continuous uncontrolled immigration it should be noted.
What would a People's Brexit look like in terms of delivered outcomes? Restricted immigration, of course; but then what?
Toby Young @toadmeister To nationalise railways Corbs would have to win next 4 GEs. Last rail franchise comes up for renewal in 2036, by which time he'll be 87.
I didn't realize a mere railway franchise could frustrate the will of parliament.
I blame BREXIT ....
Isn't the proposal to "nationalise when renewal comes up"? If not, we should be told!
Not sure. In any case it can be nationalised step by step. East Coast was nationalised until quite recently - and run well - until the Tories reprivatised it for batshit ideological reasons, nothing more.
I'm curious - does anyone who actually travels by train think that rail nationalisation is a bad idea?
If so, do they use Southern????
Those that have long memories, perhaps?
The golden age of British Rail never existed, the railways were in a steady decline in terms of usage and investment throughout that period. The somewhat romantic view people have of the railways tends to be formed by images of the period before BR was running things. Now that's not to say things can't improve, but anyone who thinks nationalisation can't make things a lot worse is wrong.
It's surely blindingly obvious that they called the election in order to win a proper majority after Cameron's dithering mess. This will mean that TM won't have to push a hard Brexit, nor will the tail wag the dog. The bitter likes of Gove and Redwood will be relatively silenced.
Every single thing so far that people have interpreted as a sign TMay doesn't want a hard Brexit has turned out not to prevent her pushing for it. Those hoping she will change tack may be disappointed. You'd think with a massive majority leader's would feel able to be bolder, but they still get frit over little things.
The leaked Labour manifesto is certainly the most left-wing since 1983, including plans to increase unionisation of the workplace, renationalise the railways, energy companies and Royal Mail, increase the minimum wage to £10 an hour, scrap tuition fees, spend more than £8 billion more on social care and £6 billion more on the NHS and build 100 000 more homes and have a commission on nuclear weapons and end undeliverable commitments on immigration all funded by a big increase in income tax for the top 5% earning over £80 000 a year. However it should go down well with Labour's core vote and will probably ensure they get 25 to 30% of the vote even if they fail to win back any voters who voted Tory or UKIP in 2015
Wow,labour playing a blinder on policies,leaked today for big coverage today and again next week when labours manifesto is released.
Got to give credit to labour,outperforming the tories so far in the build up(keep some of the shadow cabinet hidden though ;-) )
yup - that must be why they're so far ahead in the polls... oh... wait a minute.
Nevertheless, apart from the their slogan not being as clear as the Tories, labour have had a decent start. Their polling has picked up when some thought it would drop further, Corbyn himself has not messed up, and they've got their policies out there.
Unfortunately reading your and other comments today is much like 2015. Do you remember the shock with the exit poll? I think their polling success is due to LD weakness and also possibly some renewed strength in Scotland. As ever it is the areas with the most marginals that matter.
Just watched the bit on the Daily Politics about the bung in Richmond. Has this got legs?
Which leads me to two conclusions: one, it was a joke ("man, I'd pay you £250k to stand aside", which both parties knew wasn't actually possible; or two, it never happened.
Or the Conservative Dirty Tricks Department just made it up.
With sleeper agents in the Green party?
It's a non-story, not least because it never happened and wasn't the reason the Greens stood down in the first place. They are standing down in lots of places this time, most recently Southport announced yesterday.
When a crime is planned but doesn't happen there's still a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Is it a crime to stand down in an election?
No, but it is a crime to try to bribe someone to do so.
Is it?
According to the Guardian:
A clause in the Representation of the People Act says that anyone who “corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election” through payment or the offer of payment is committing an offence.
Thanks. A lot could turn on "corruptly". Setting up a progressive alliance might be argued not to be corrupt.
Isn't the "corruptly inducing" part the bribe?
Edit: The full text from the 1983 Act is:
Any person who corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, in consideration of any payment or promise of payment, and any person withdrawing in pursuance of the inducement or procurement, shall be guilty of an illegal payment.
That would make the word "corruptly" superfluous. It must have some additional meaning.
Sorry, late to this one; surely the use of "corruptly" is to ensure this covers solely manipulation of the political process?
Consider an innocent example: a would be employer desperately wants (for valid commercial reasons) a candidate to come and work for them. The duties of the proposed role would prevent the candidate from properly acting as an MP, and so to take up the role they must withdraw. In order to incentivise them, the employer offers a sign-on bonus. One would need a carve out in the legislation to permit this, hence "corruptly". It's surprisingly pithy, for legislative wording.
What Mrs May really needs is a few polls with the Tory lead down to single digits.
Or a good old Tory campaign coitus up.
Perhaps she can be recorded off mic calling voters thick, smelly, or bigots.
She already has a number of polls putting Labour on 31%, the same as last time. Confirms Nick Palmer's reports of the Labour vote holding steady.
I have to admit to being totally surprised that Labour is hitting circa 30% all the time now. They could 32-33 by the end of the campaign.
Actually, apart from Abbott's plane crash, things have gone relatively smoothly.
Effective as the Tory election machine is overall, it does repel significant numbers of people. I don't find Tories particularly objectionable most of the time, but in GE mode I loathe them and would vote for the devil to make them shut up.
I think Jezza has done a splendid job in proving that WTO terms isn't hard Brexit even in the slightest.
Imagine Brexit with Corbyn's policies on top.
It is quite amusing seeing people who fret about Brexit's effect on the economy lapping up what Corbyn has to say. Mutton-headed mugwumps as Boris would call them.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're making my point. The problem is a red rosette. If Theresa May announced that for sound right wing economic reasons tuition fees were to be scrapped, the nation would accept it without demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
How can you say that they have abandoned austerity when the deficit fell about £18bn in the last year alone? The downward slope to balance has got less steep but we are clearly still on it.
It's a statement of fact. The government has abandoned its previous deficit reduction programme.
No it hasn't. It has modified the time that will be taken to eliminate the deficit to give more support to the economy during Brexit, in the same way that Osborne did to offset serious economic weakness in the EZ during the Coalition. That is not abandonment of the objective or the recognition of the need to reduce debt as a share of GDP.
It's abandoning the objective to do it by x. I still have the broad objective to lose weight, but since I've mostly stopped any food discipline, I've abandoned the way I intended to achieve it.
No, it's "I've just been diagnosed with an illness that will ravage my body for an unknown amount of time, probably best not to starve myself right now"
May looks horribly confident to me. Almost smug. I sometimes wonder whether she should go away and send back party political broadcasts sitting by a pool with a pina colada.
At this stage, it does appear the Tories are trying to run as low-key a campaign as they can. The calculation seems to be, don't risk the c17% lead, just keep repeating 'strong and stable' and let Labour mess things up.
The risk with that is that Labour start to gain traction on the back of media saturation. As loony as some of the manifesto is, I could see that happening. Presumably the Tories are holding lots back in case the polls narrow. The next couple of weeks will be very interesting.
This from yesterday is interesting: low key is intentional, apparently. It's a risky tactic - if it fails they'll be roasted by the media for not running the safe, tried and tested campaign - but if it works, nobody will realise until the exit poll drops.
However, they were below 30% in the local elections.
The vote % and the seat distribution are two completely different things under our electoral system.
And remember the French elections just gone, polls had Macron around 61-63, nothing had him at 66. Macron was the sensible choice in that election.
When you add in normal polling errors and our FPTP system it is a heady brew for the June 8th result. Personally I have no idea how large the Tory majority might be.
That's true. My point is that winning 30% means little if your opponent far outscores you. On current polling, I'd expect about 400 Conservative seats.
I'm curious - does anyone who actually travels by train think that rail nationalisation is a bad idea?
If so, do they use Southern????
Do you know how few people in the country travel regularly by train? the great majority of those who do are in SE England - an area where Labour may not make very many gains.
All that may be true, but I wasn't really suggesting it's going to be a massively popular policy that will win Labour the election. More that those who suffer the realities of rail travel may not find it as ridiculous as the tabloid press are going to make out.
Wow,labour playing a blinder on policies,leaked today for big coverage today and again next week when labours manifesto is released.
Got to give credit to labour,outperforming the tories so far in the build up(keep some of the shadow cabinet hidden though ;-) )
yup - that must be why they're so far ahead in the polls... oh... wait a minute.
Nevertheless, apart from the their slogan not being as clear as the Tories, labour have had a decent start. Their polling has picked up when some thought it would drop further, Corbyn himself has not messed up, and they've got their policies out there.
Tories have also improved by about the same amount in the polls.
I'm not saying the Tories will not do well, but if the polling is right there will be no collapse that leads to an existential labour crisis. They were flirting with 25, now they regularly hit 31, and there's little reason to think more gaffes or bad stories will reduce them if the current ones haven't.
Morning all, been giving some thought to vote % for this GE, and Corbyn's apparent position. If the Lib Dems are on about 10 and UKIP are disintegrating, given the upper limit for the SNP/PC and the limited number of Green contested seats, Labour HAVE to be on high twenties to 30 right? Anything less and May is in high 400s seats....... I'm thinking Corbyn and Labour, in the absence of a Lib revival, have to be jn the 30-35 band with the Tories 42-50. I mean 50-30-10-change would represent a massive landslide but would see Corbyn 'maintain votes' (by default)
Wow,labour playing a blinder on policies,leaked today for big coverage today and again next week when labours manifesto is released.
Got to give credit to labour,outperforming the tories so far in the build up(keep some of the shadow cabinet hidden though ;-) )
yup - that must be why they're so far ahead in the polls... oh... wait a minute.
Nevertheless, apart from the their slogan not being as clear as the Tories, labour have had a decent start. Their polling has picked up when some thought it would drop further, Corbyn himself has not messed up, and they've got their policies out there.
Tories have also improved by about the same amount in the polls.
I'm not saying the Tories will not do well, but if the polling is right there will be no collapse that leads to an existential labour crisis. They were flirting with 25, now they regularly hit 31, and there's little reason to think more gaffes or bad stories will reduce them if the current ones haven't.
Hm, I don't think they are regularly hitting 31. Of the twelve polls this month, only twice. They've hit 28 twice as often.
May looks horribly confident to me. Almost smug. I sometimes wonder whether she should go away and send back party political broadcasts sitting by a pool with a pina colada.
At this stage, it does appear the Tories are trying to run as low-key a campaign as they can. The calculation seems to be, don't risk the c17% lead, just keep repeating 'strong and stable' and let Labour mess things up.
The risk with that is that Labour start to gain traction on the back of media saturation. As loony as some of the manifesto is, I could see that happening. Presumably the Tories are holding lots back in case the polls narrow. The next couple of weeks will be very interesting.
This from yesterday is interesting: low key is intentional, apparently. It's a risky tactic - if it fails they'll be roasted by the media for not running the safe, tried and tested campaign - but if it works, nobody will realise until the exit poll drops.
Yes - very interesting. In 2015 they took the pollsters - and many of the wisest sages on here by surprise - especially in SW England. It's extraordinary how quickly so many forget how utterly wrong they were. all we need now is the return of - was it IOS? - to lecture us on the great Labour GOTV operation.
How can you say that they have abandoned austerity when the deficit fell about £18bn in the last year alone? The downward slope to balance has got less steep but we are clearly still on it.
It's a statement of fact. The government has abandoned its previous deficit reduction programme.
No it hasn't. It has modified the time that will be taken to eliminate the deficit to give more support to the economy during Brexit, in the same way that Osborne did to offset serious economic weakness in the EZ during the Coalition. That is not abandonment of the objective or the recognition of the need to reduce debt as a share of GDP.
It's abandoning the objective to do it by x. I still have the broad objective to lose weight, but since I've mostly stopped any food discipline, I've abandoned the way I intended to achieve it.
You haven't abandoned the objective of losing weight. You might be doing something different to achieve it like going to the gym more and it might take a bit longer to reach your target but you still have that aim and recognise its importance for your health. In contrast Labour basically seems to be saying that the deficit doesn't matter. Whatever the economics I don't think the majority of people will buy that.
What would a People's Brexit look like in terms of delivered outcomes? Restricted immigration, of course; but then what?
A reduction in the cost of housing (private rental and home ownership), fewer complaints about demand killing the NHS and education systems, fewer issues around language/interpretation, a welfare system that prioritised birthright and contribution, the localisation of industrial and business production and networks, a greater proportion of UK produced and sourced food etc etc.
All that may be true, but I wasn't really suggesting it's going to be a massively popular policy that will win Labour the election. More that those who suffer the realities of rail travel may not find it as ridiculous as the tabloid press are going to make out.
Do you think nationalisation and stronger trade unions would make Southern run better or worse? I would say at least half the current problem is the behaviour of the rail unions, and Corbyn would give them a damn near veto over the running of the railways.
Or they didn't buy it because the previous salesman was hammered on it by the party more trusted with the nation's finances?
That's my point. It's the medium not the message that's the problem for Labour. They need to change the public's impression of their brand.
I disagree, if anybody in a red rosette spoke of re-nationalisation and reversing tuition fees it would be met with a roll of the eyes. The wider public accepts they are unaffordable, if attractive to the gullible.
You're demur.
I disagree again, the wider electorate is financially responsible, its why the Labour Party is dying, Corbyn is simply hastening its demise.
Politicians make unrealistic promises, voters have seen through it all. Its why "strong and stable" is so successful and loony financial commitments by Labour are scoffed at.
We have a government that has quietly abandoned austerity to spunk the money on Brexit. Talk to me again about the electorate's economic responsibility.
How can you say that they have abandoned austerity when the deficit fell about £18bn in the last year alone? The downward slope to balance has got less steep but we are clearly still on it.
It's a statement of fact. The government has abandoned its previous deficit reduction programme.
No it hasn't. It has modified the time that will be taken to eliminate the deficit to give more support to the economy during Brexit, in the same way that Osborne did to offset serious economic weakness in the EZ during the Coalition. That is not abandonment of the objective or the recognition of the need to reduce debt as a share of GDP.
It's abandoning the objective to do it by x. I still have the broad objective to lose weight, but since I've mostly stopped any food discipline, I've abandoned the way I intended to achieve it.
No, it's "I've just been diagnosed with an illness that will ravage my body for an unknown amount of time, probably best not to starve myself right now"
If you want to argue abandoning the plan is a good idea, that's a different argument than saying it has not been abandoned, which was the point I was rebutting.
I'm curious - does anyone who actually travels by train think that rail nationalisation is a bad idea?
If so, do they use Southern????
Do you know how few people in the country travel regularly by train? the great majority of those who do are in SE England - an area where Labour may not make very many gains.
All that may be true, but I wasn't really suggesting it's going to be a massively popular policy that will win Labour the election. More that those who suffer the realities of rail travel may not find it as ridiculous as the tabloid press are going to make out.
Indeed - but if it doesn't make them vote Labour.....
Wow,labour playing a blinder on policies,leaked today for big coverage today and again next week when labours manifesto is released.
Got to give credit to labour,outperforming the tories so far in the build up(keep some of the shadow cabinet hidden though ;-) )
yup - that must be why they're so far ahead in the polls... oh... wait a minute.
Nevertheless, apart from the their slogan not being as clear as the Tories, labour have had a decent start. Their polling has picked up when some thought it would drop further, Corbyn himself has not messed up, and they've got their policies out there.
Tories have also improved by about the same amount in the polls.
I'm not saying the Tories will not do well, but if the polling is right there will be no collapse that leads to an existential labour crisis. They were flirting with 25, now they regularly hit 31, and there's little reason to think more gaffes or bad stories will reduce them if the current ones haven't.
I just don't believe it. No way are Labour on 30%. Either I am, and many PBers, are completely reading the runes wrong, or there is going to need to be another polling inquiry if this keeps up.
She didn't call an election because of Corbyn....She called an election to give here the clout she needs in dealing with the EU.and so no one at home or in the EU can use the excuse...' you don't even have a mandate.'
This Labour manifesto. Bloody hell. Is it real? If it is the polls will move over the next few days. Makes the longest suicide note look positively sensible. Telegraph absolutely monstering it today.
However, they were below 30% in the local elections.
The vote % and the seat distribution are two completely different things under our electoral system.
And remember the French elections just gone, polls had Macron around 61-63, nothing had him at 66. Macron was the sensible choice in that election.
When you add in normal polling errors and our FPTP system it is a heady brew for the June 8th result. Personally I have no idea how large the Tory majority might be.
That's true. My point is that winning 30% means little if your opponent far outscores you. On current polling, I'd expect about 400 Conservative seats.
Unless the Tories smarten up their act considerably over the remaining four weeks, I'm expecting them to win between 370 - 380 seats and hence a perfectly adequate but hardly spectacular majority of between 90 - 110
Wow,labour playing a blinder on policies,leaked today for big coverage today and again next week when labours manifesto is released.
Got to give credit to labour,outperforming the tories so far in the build up(keep some of the shadow cabinet hidden though ;-) )
yup - that must be why they're so far ahead in the polls... oh... wait a minute.
Nevertheless, apart from the their slogan not being as clear as the Tories, labour have had a decent start. Their polling has picked up when some thought it would drop further, Corbyn himself has not messed up, and they've got their policies out there.
Tories have also improved by about the same amount in the polls.
I'm not saying the Tories will not do well, but if the polling is right there will be no collapse that leads to an existential labour crisis. They were flirting with 25, now they regularly hit 31, and there's little reason to think more gaffes or bad stories will reduce them if the current ones haven't.
I just don't believe it. No way are Labour on 30%. Either I am, and many PBers, are completely reading the runes wrong, or there is going to need to be another polling inquiry if this keeps up.
I think they are about right for this stage given the failure of the LDs to cut through and the very slight recovery in Scotland. Still quite likely though that most of their recovered votes will concentrate where they are not needed or useless.
Wow,labour playing a blinder on policies,leaked today for big coverage today and again next week when labours manifesto is released.
Got to give credit to labour,outperforming the tories so far in the build up(keep some of the shadow cabinet hidden though ;-) )
yup - that must be why they're so far ahead in the polls... oh... wait a minute.
Nevertheless, apart from the their slogan not being as clear as the Tories, labour have had a decent start. Their polling has picked up when some thought it would drop further, Corbyn himself has not messed up, and they've got their policies out there.
Unfortunately reading your and other comments today is much like 2015. Do you remember the shock with the exit poll? I think their polling success is due to LD weakness and also possibly some renewed strength in Scotland. As ever it is the areas with the most marginals that matter.
Except I'm not saying, this time, that labour will do well. Given losses in Wales and other areas they probably are stacking up votes in places that won't help them a great deal. But it will help them. Talk has been of seats with 10000 majorities being vulnerable. If they're on 31, I'd say those seats, safe seats peopkechad been worried about, are if not still safe, then more secure than thought, even as anything around 5000 may well be lost.
Labour could end up somewhere between 150-200. If they get 31-32, they will clearly have a better chance of getting near the upper end of that range, even if they will still lose dozens..
I'm curious - does anyone who actually travels by train think that rail nationalisation is a bad idea?
If so, do they use Southern????
Southern is an interesting example. An overmighty union is inflicting misery on the public despite the fact that the public are not the cause of the dispute and can't resolve it. And the company, understandably, doesn't want to cave to the union bullying tactics for fear of setting a precedent.
However, they were below 30% in the local elections.
The vote % and the seat distribution are two completely different things under our electoral system.
And remember the French elections just gone, polls had Macron around 61-63, nothing had him at 66. Macron was the sensible choice in that election.
When you add in normal polling errors and our FPTP system it is a heady brew for the June 8th result. Personally I have no idea how large the Tory majority might be.
That's true. My point is that winning 30% means little if your opponent far outscores you. On current polling, I'd expect about 400 Conservative seats.
Unless the Tories smarten up their act considerably over the remaining four weeks, I'm expecting them to win between 370 - 380 seats and hence a perfectly adequate but hardly spectacular majority of between 90 - 110
Not sure the blues have actually done anything good yet! All we've had so far is the rehashed energy cap (why)
This Labour manifesto. Bloody hell. Is it real? If it is the polls will move over the next few days. Makes the longest suicide note look positively sensible. Telegraph absolutely monstering it today.
I doubt they are the target audience. They might well get a slight bump at first, there's nice sounding stuff in there, but odds are it won't move things long term.
However, they were below 30% in the local elections.
The vote % and the seat distribution are two completely different things under our electoral system.
And remember the French elections just gone, polls had Macron around 61-63, nothing had him at 66. Macron was the sensible choice in that election.
When you add in normal polling errors and our FPTP system it is a heady brew for the June 8th result. Personally I have no idea how large the Tory majority might be.
That's true. My point is that winning 30% means little if your opponent far outscores you. On current polling, I'd expect about 400 Conservative seats.
Unless the Tories smarten up their act considerably over the remaining four weeks, I'm expecting them to win between 370 - 380 seats and hence a perfectly adequate but hardly spectacular majority of between 90 - 110
Goodness me - I'd be very happy with that - well above my early hopes and it'd leave Labour in a mess. WNTL?
All that may be true, but I wasn't really suggesting it's going to be a massively popular policy that will win Labour the election. More that those who suffer the realities of rail travel may not find it as ridiculous as the tabloid press are going to make out.
Do you think nationalisation and stronger trade unions would make Southern run better or worse? I would say at least half the current problem is the behaviour of the rail unions, and Corbyn would give them a damn near veto over the running of the railways.
Hmm. You seem to be implying renationalisation must be bad because it's Corbyn's policy, and Corbyn has other policies on trade unions that you think are bad.
That would be OK as an anti-Corbyn argument, but it was just renationalisation per se I was asking about.
What Mrs May really needs is a few polls with the Tory lead down to single digits.
Or a good old Tory campaign coitus up.
Perhaps she can be recorded off mic calling voters thick, smelly, or bigots.
She already has a number of polls putting Labour on 31%, the same as last time. Confirms Nick Palmer's reports of the Labour vote holding steady.
I have to admit to being totally surprised that Labour is hitting circa 30% all the time now. They could 32-33 by the end of the campaign.
Actually, apart from Abbott's plane crash, things have gone relatively smoothly.
It does seem to be an amazing performance in the polls by Labour, despite the widespread ridiculing of its leader and increasingly so of his second in command, John McDonnell.
It does now appear entirely possible that Labour could end winning a larger share of the vote than they achieved in the 2015 GE. Were this to be the case, the party's hierarchy would no doubt claim that it was not so much Corbyn and his team who lost the GE for Labour, but rather UKIP and possibly the SNP to a lesser extent who had handed it on a plate to the Tories. We live in strange times.
A lot of people seem to have assumed Labour must do much worse than 2015 because Corbyn is much worse than Milliband and thus find 30% poll shares hard to believe.
But also a lot of people praised the Con 2015 message of vote Ed get Nicola. I think it was a big factor in delivering the Con majority. So the underlying Labour percentage may have been 33% say rather than the 31% they got. If that's true then it's possible for the Corbyn factor to have lost Labour 10% of its support and still have them polling at 30%. So there is no anomoly to explain.
Labour share at 30-35% available at 5/1 at Corals if you're tempted. I am but not going in right now. I also don't see Labour dropping below 150 seats. It could happen but I don't think it's likely.
Any person who corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, in consideration of any payment or promise of payment, and any person withdrawing in pursuance of the inducement or procurement, shall be guilty of an illegal payment.
< That would make the word "corruptly" superfluous. It must have some additional meaning.
The key word is "candidate". According to the Guardian article, the Police declined to pursue the case because the Greens didn't have a candidate at the time the money was offered. It seems it's an offence to pay to get a candidate to stand down but not an offence to pay a party not to put one up in the first place. It wasn't clear from the article whether the Green Party took the money anyway. As it was supposedly an individual who made the offer the Lib Dems should be in the clear regardless.
Further to my thoughts before, assuming Labour get 30, if the mood music of their vote capitulation in the North and Midlands and holding up in the South is correct, it implies disintegration of their vote efficiency which might see them collase to low 100 seats on a Miliband % Lots of tasty variables here.
I'm curious - does anyone who actually travels by train think that rail nationalisation is a bad idea?
If so, do they use Southern????
I'm a Southern season ticket holder. I think nationalisation is a terrible idea.
And because I'm a Southern season ticket holder I also think abolishing the Trades Union Act is a terrible idea.
Thanks. I'd be curious to know why, if you'd like to say.
Because the dispute is not about who owns the railways it's about progressing to driver only operation of trains, which goes hand in hand with new rolling stock.
Who on earth would go back to busses with separate conductors and drivers, with the conductors sharing the responsibility for the starting and stopping of the busses?
Wow,labour playing a blinder on policies,leaked today for big coverage today and again next week when labours manifesto is released.
Got to give credit to labour,outperforming the tories so far in the build up(keep some of the shadow cabinet hidden though ;-) )
yup - that must be why they're so far ahead in the polls... oh... wait a minute.
Nevertheless, apart from the their slogan not being as clear as the Tories, labour have had a decent start. Their polling has picked up when some thought it would drop further, Corbyn himself has not messed up, and they've got their policies out there.
Unfortunately reading your and other comments today is much like 2015. Do you remember the shock with the exit poll? I think their polling success is due to LD weakness and also possibly some renewed strength in Scotland. As ever it is the areas with the most marginals that matter.
Except I'm not saying, this time, that labour will do well. Given losses in Wales and other areas they probably are stacking up votes in places that won't help them a great deal. But it will help them. Talk has been of seats with 10000 majorities being vulnerable. If they're on 31, I'd say those seats, safe seats peopkechad been worried about, are if not still safe, then more secure than thought, even as anything around 5000 may well be lost.
Labour could end up somewhere between 150-200. If they get 31-32, they will clearly have a better chance of getting near the upper end of that range, even if they will still lose dozens..
I think we agree largely on the outcome. Lots of posters get excited about polls - if Alistair Meeks is to be believed it'll be carnage and I'd be delighted. However, I'm unconvinced as yet.
Wow,labour playing a blinder on policies,leaked today for big coverage today and again next week when labours manifesto is released.
Got to give credit to labour,outperforming the tories so far in the build up(keep some of the shadow cabinet hidden though ;-) )
yup - that must be why they're so far ahead in the polls... oh... wait a minute.
Nevertheless, apart from the their slogan not being as clear as the Tories, labour have had a decent start. Their polling has picked up when some thought it would drop further, Corbyn himself has not messed up, and they've got their policies out there.
Tories have also improved by about the same amount in the polls.
I'm not saying the Tories will not do well, but if the polling is right there will be no collapse that leads to an existential labour crisis. They were flirting with 25, now they regularly hit 31, and there's little reason to think more gaffes or bad stories will reduce them if the current ones haven't.
I just don't believe it. No way are Labour on 30%. Either I am, and many PBers, are completely reading the runes wrong, or there is going to need to be another polling inquiry if this keeps up.
I struggle to believe it as well - we've seen losses in labour areas which do not stack up with them essentially doing no worse than 2015, we know the infighting that has been there, is the core vote plus those terrified of a big Tory majority really 31%? That's what we're being told. I'm sure many of us have money on the assumption the polls are wrong again, but what if they're not?
I'm curious - does anyone who actually travels by train think that rail nationalisation is a bad idea?
If so, do they use Southern????
Southern is an interesting example. An overmighty union is inflicting misery on the public despite the fact that the public are not the cause of the dispute and can't resolve it. And the company, understandably, doesn't want to cave to the union bullying tactics for fear of setting a precedent.
Right. You think the problems at Southern are all the fault of the unions (and presumably that everything was fine and dandy before the dispute).
You didn't mention whether you used Southern, though.
I'm curious - does anyone who actually travels by train think that rail nationalisation is a bad idea?
If so, do they use Southern????
I'm a Southern season ticket holder. I think nationalisation is a terrible idea.
And because I'm a Southern season ticket holder I also think abolishing the Trades Union Act is a terrible idea.
Thanks. I'd be curious to know why, if you'd like to say.
Because the dispute is not about who owns the railways it's about progressing to driver only operation of trains, which goes hand in hand with new rolling stock.
Who on earth would go back to busses with separate conductors and drivers, with the conductors sharing the responsibility for the starting and stopping of the busses?
May looks horribly confident to me. Almost smug. I sometimes wonder whether she should go away and send back party political broadcasts sitting by a pool with a pina colada.
Wipe the smile off her face by reducing her number of MP's by any means possible.
Bring on that cure for smugness, bring on that Coalition of Chaos, or as I prefer to call it: multi-party democracy
@PickardJE: Interesting rumour in @iainmartin1 column today that Philip Hammond could be replaced as chancellor by Amber Rudd after election.
Someone has clearly been after him for mk the now. Since TMay must have signed off on his budget before he gave it, it cannot be because he made a mistake since she agreed it, so presumably it's either seeing him as a rival, or he's arguing policy directions she doesn't lik.
Wow,labour playing a blinder on policies,leaked today for big coverage today and again next week when labours manifesto is released.
Got to give credit to labour,outperforming the tories so far in the build up(keep some of the shadow cabinet hidden though ;-) )
yup - that must be why they're so far ahead in the polls... oh... wait a minute.
Nevertheless, apart from the their slogan not being as clear as the Tories, labour have had a decent start. Their polling has picked up when some thought it would drop further, Corbyn himself has not messed up, and they've got their policies out there.
Tories have also improved by about the same amount in the polls.
I'm not saying the Tories will not do well, but if the polling is right there will be no collapse that leads to an existential labour crisis. They were flirting with 25, now they regularly hit 31, and there's little reason to think more gaffes or bad stories will reduce them if the current ones haven't.
I just don't believe it. No way are Labour on 30%. Either I am, and many PBers, are completely reading the runes wrong, or there is going to need to be another polling inquiry if this keeps up.
This really comes back to the point of the thread header. If you are convinced that Labour are going to lose badly anyway then voting Labour is a free hit showing you "care" even if you are not confident in the details. The Tories cannot take Corbyn seriously and are going to fail in asking the country to do so. They need a different tack.
I'm curious - does anyone who actually travels by train think that rail nationalisation is a bad idea?
If so, do they use Southern????
Those that have long memories, perhaps?
The golden age of British Rail never existed, the railways were in a steady decline in terms of usage and investment throughout that period. The somewhat romantic view people have of the railways tends to be formed by images of the period before BR was running things. Now that's not to say things can't improve, but anyone who thinks nationalisation can't make things a lot worse is wrong.
I'm curious - does anyone who actually travels by train think that rail nationalisation is a bad idea?
If so, do they use Southern????
I'm a Southern season ticket holder. I think nationalisation is a terrible idea.
And because I'm a Southern season ticket holder I also think abolishing the Trades Union Act is a terrible idea.
Thanks. I'd be curious to know why, if you'd like to say.
Because the dispute is not about who owns the railways it's about progressing to driver only operation of trains, which goes hand in hand with new rolling stock.
Who on earth would go back to busses with separate conductors and drivers, with the conductors sharing the responsibility for the starting and stopping of the busses?
Just for a moment, I thought that was "DearPB" explaining why he thought renationalisation was a bad idea, rather than "notme" explaining why "DearPB" thought it was a bad idea!
By the way, "notme" you didn't mention whether your view of the problems at Southern - and again, apparently, the view that they were all down to the unions and that there was no problem before the dispute - were formed from experience of using Southern, or otherwise.
Assuming Theresa May wins, I'd like to see some significant changes made to her cabinet, not least by moving her CoE who has been anything but impressive so far. Apart from a couple of high-profile sackings in Osborne & Gove, she's pretty much continued with Cameron's team of senior ministers and it's high time she introduced some new faces, hopefully with fresh talent. Unfortunately she doesn't appear to have a latter day equivalent to Margaret Thatcher's Willie Whitelaw to provide the necessary guidance.
Hmm. You seem to be implying renationalisation must be bad because it's Corbyn's policy, and Corbyn has other policies on trade unions that you think are bad.
That would be OK as an anti-Corbyn argument, but it was just renationalisation per se I was asking about.
But you aren't going to get nationalisation on its own, you will get everything else Corbyn plans as well. Giving a lot more power to intransigent trade unions doesn't sound like a good way of making the railways run better to me.
However, they were below 30% in the local elections.
The vote % and the seat distribution are two completely different things under our electoral system.
And remember the French elections just gone, polls had Macron around 61-63, nothing had him at 66. Macron was the sensible choice in that election.
When you add in normal polling errors and our FPTP system it is a heady brew for the June 8th result. Personally I have no idea how large the Tory majority might be.
That's true. My point is that winning 30% means little if your opponent far outscores you. On current polling, I'd expect about 400 Conservative seats.
Unless the Tories smarten up their act considerably over the remaining four weeks, I'm expecting them to win between 370 - 380 seats and hence a perfectly adequate but hardly spectacular majority of between 90 - 110
Not sure the blues have actually done anything good yet! All we've had so far is the rehashed energy cap (why)
They have set the context of the election. This election is about the delivery of Brexit and whom you trust to achieve the best possible outcome for the UK from the coming negotiations. Their victory there has been total with Corbyn being reluctant to even enter the field, let alone make a fight of it. And that means they win. Not necessarily massively for other reasons but they win.
I just don't believe it. No way are Labour on 30%. Either I am, and many PBers, are completely reading the runes wrong, or there is going to need to be another polling inquiry if this keeps up.
It's a PB doctrine that disagreeing with every poll is a sign that one's deluding oneself. It's what led people into bvetting on Le Pen long after it was blindingly obvious that she'd lose. Yes, the polls were slightly wrong over Brexit (a few %), but actually right about Clinton (she won most votes, but in the wrong places).
Moreover, those of us on the ground (apologies if you are in fact actively campaigning for anyone) are mostly confirming the impression - Labour is maintaining all but a fraction of its 2015 vote (which was already down to the "always Labour" plus middle-class Guardianistas) and picking up some people from across the spectrum who like Corbyn's unassuming style and dislike the Empress May stuff. We're losing a trickle (e.g. Southam) who feel strongly about Hamas and the IRA but most people struggle to distinguish Hamas from humus and feel life has moved on from the IRA. And overall the polarisation of the election is giving Labour a boost.
Equally I believe the polls showing the Tories well ahead. It's obvious on the doorstep that ex-UKIP voters are switching to them, and that's the main story of the election. Roughly 45-30 is where we're at.
This Labour manifesto. Bloody hell. Is it real? If it is the polls will move over the next few days. Makes the longest suicide note look positively sensible. Telegraph absolutely monstering it today.
Wow,labour playing a blinder on policies,leaked today for big coverage today and again next week when labours manifesto is released.
Got to give credit to labour,outperforming the tories so far in the build up(keep some of the shadow cabinet hidden though ;-) )
yup - that must be why they're so far ahead in the polls... oh... wait a minute.
Nevertheless, apart from the their slogan not being as clear as the Tories, labour have had a decent start. Their polling has picked up when some thought it would drop further, Corbyn himself has not messed up, and they've got their policies out there.
Tories have also improved by about the same amount in the polls.
I'm not saying the Tories will not do well, but if the polling is right there will be no collapse that leads to an existential labour crisis. They were flirting with 25, now they regularly hit 31, and there's little reason to think more gaffes or bad stories will reduce them if the current ones haven't.
I just don't believe it. No way are Labour on 30%. Either I am, and many PBers, are completely reading the runes wrong, or there is going to need to be another polling inquiry if this keeps up.
I struggle to believe it as well - we've seen losses in labour areas which do not stack up with them essentially doing no worse than 2015, we know the infighting that has been there, is the core vote plus those terrified of a big Tory majority really 31%? That's what we're being told. I'm sure many of us have money on the assumption the polls are wrong again, but what if they're not?
We lose a load of money on bets on Tories in Bootle but May still wins. Corbyn is staying whatever happens. All the interest moves on to September and party conference I guess.
This Labour manifesto. Bloody hell. Is it real? If it is the polls will move over the next few days. Makes the longest suicide note look positively sensible. Telegraph absolutely monstering it today.
The GHWBCSG consists of flagship aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), guided-missile cruisers USS Philippine Sea (CG 58) and USS Hue City (CG 66), and DESRON-22 guided-missile destroyers USS Laboon (DDG 58) and USS Truxtun (DDG 103).
On their mission in the Mediterranean, U.S. Navy ships are joined by the Danish frigate HDMS Peter Willemoes which set sail from Denmark on January 26.
But since ISIS has neither a navy, air force or anti-ship missiles, perhaps the Americans will survive without us -- that will save a few shakes of the magic money tree.
Assuming Theresa May wins, I'd like to see some significant changes made to her cabinet, not least by moving her CoE who has been anything but impressive so far. Apart from a couple of high-profile sackings in Osborne & Gove, she's pretty much continued with Cameron's team of senior ministers and it's high time she introduced some new faces, hopefully with fresh talent. Unfortunately she doesn't appear to have a latter day equivalent to Margaret Thatcher's Willie Whitelaw to provide the necessary guidance.
Continuity by and large was probably a good move, although she did sack several, but after a big win is probably a good time to make more changes. I'd rather someone dull like Hammond were at the foreign office for a start, but I cannot see Boris being moved.
Hmm. You seem to be implying renationalisation must be bad because it's Corbyn's policy, and Corbyn has other policies on trade unions that you think are bad.
That would be OK as an anti-Corbyn argument, but it was just renationalisation per se I was asking about.
But you aren't going to get nationalisation on its own, you will get everything else Corbyn plans as well. Giving a lot more power to intransigent trade unions doesn't sound like a good way of making the railways run better to me.
None of this is going to happen anyway, because Theresa May is going to be reelected (almost certainly!).
I was just trying to ask a question about people's views of renationalisation of the railways.
This Labour manifesto. Bloody hell. Is it real? If it is the polls will move over the next few days. Makes the longest suicide note look positively sensible. Telegraph absolutely monstering it today.
Hmm. You seem to be implying renationalisation must be bad because it's Corbyn's policy, and Corbyn has other policies on trade unions that you think are bad.
That would be OK as an anti-Corbyn argument, but it was just renationalisation per se I was asking about.
But you aren't going to get nationalisation on its own, you will get everything else Corbyn plans as well. Giving a lot more power to intransigent trade unions doesn't sound like a good way of making the railways run better to me.
None of this is going to happen anyway, because Theresa May is going to be reelected (almost certainly!).
I was just trying to ask a question about people's views of renationalisation of the railways.
I can see it being relatively popular. Without knowing details it isn't the sort of idea that gets my blood boiling.
The Dutch and German governments are not subsidising our rail network at all - they are making surpluses thanks to the vast taxpayer subsidy to franchisees. Hence our government is subsidising them. The level of ignorance on the shambles that is rail franchising may soon come to an end if it becomes an election issue!
Really? Do you also account for the huge debt burden carried by the public purse for the track? Are you really suggesting that the franchisees cover the cost of the railway? Either way, our railway is a great money spinner for the governments of Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Heads we lose, tails we lose.
I'm curious - does anyone who actually travels by train think that rail nationalisation is a bad idea?
If so, do they use Southern????
The problem with nationalised industries has always been that you can't embarrass them by threatening the well being of their business. The result is you get involved in a Kafkaesque Labyrinth for which there is no recourse. British Rail for all the romantic memories was about the worst.
I just don't believe it. No way are Labour on 30%. Either I am, and many PBers, are completely reading the runes wrong, or there is going to need to be another polling inquiry if this keeps up.
It's a PB doctrine that disagreeing with every poll is a sign that one's deluding oneself. It's what led people into bvetting on Le Pen long after it was blindingly obvious that she'd lose. Yes, the polls were slightly wrong over Brexit (a few %), but actually right about Clinton (she won most votes, but in the wrong places).
Moreover, those of us on the ground (apologies if you are in fact actively campaigning for anyone) are mostly confirming the impression - Labour is maintaining all but a fraction of its 2015 vote (which was already down to the "always Labour" plus middle-class Guardianistas) and picking up some people from across the spectrum who like Corbyn's unassuming style and dislike the Empress May stuff. We're losing a trickle (e.g. Southam) who feel strongly about Hamas and the IRA but most people struggle to distinguish Hamas from humus and feel life has moved on from the IRA. And overall the polarisation of the election is giving Labour a boost.
Equally I believe the polls showing the Tories well ahead. It's obvious on the doorstep that ex-UKIP voters are switching to them, and that's the main story of the election. Roughly 45-30 is where we're at.
To translate, Corbyn is failing to do all the things that he said his leadership would deliver: a comeback in Scotland, more engagement from the young, more votes from previous non-voters; while proving incapable of persuading any Tories or previous UKIP voters that they should vote for the party. In other words, there is no way a Corbyn-led Labour party can ever defeat the Tories.
This is the problem, basically: the entire Labour leadership team and a lot of the membership don't need a Labour government and do not fear the consequences of a Tory one. Comfortably off and sheltered from reality they are playing a wonderful game. It is unforgiveable, quite frankly.
None of this is going to happen anyway, because Theresa May is going to be reelected (almost certainly!).
I was just trying to ask a question about people's views of renationalisation of the railways.
I'm not against nationalisation per se, I'm against the dogma that some in the Labour Party share that nationalisation is inherently a better way to run things like utilities and transport. I think there is abundant evidence that nationalised industries can be every bit as bad and inefficient as the worst offenders in the private sector.
This Labour manifesto. Bloody hell. Is it real? If it is the polls will move over the next few days. Makes the longest suicide note look positively sensible. Telegraph absolutely monstering it today.
This Labour manifesto. Bloody hell. Is it real? If it is the polls will move over the next few days. Makes the longest suicide note look positively sensible. Telegraph absolutely monstering it today.
Who reads the fucking Telegraph ?
For some reason that sounds like a contradiction in terms!
The Dutch and German governments are not subsidising our rail network at all - they are making surpluses thanks to the vast taxpayer subsidy to franchisees. Hence our government is subsidising them. The level of ignorance on the shambles that is rail franchising may soon come to an end if it becomes an election issue!
You really are a bit dim aren't you? We do not subsidize the Dutch and German governments. We subsidize rail franchises that without subsidies would not operate. With the exception of commuter services into London and ram packed long distance services on the WCML and ECML, this means the rest of the trains.
The principle of rail franchising is to get private companies (even if they are owned by other governments) to bid for the lowest subsidy (or highest premium in the case of the South Western, West Coast and East Coast franchises) to operate the trains. The margin made by these companies is not that big. Stagecoach did quite well on the first South West Trains franchise from 1996 to 2004, but they've paid well over the odds for the last 13 years.
As an example, my season ticket from Woking is £3,100 year. About £2,200 pays for the operation of the railway and a very small profit for Stagecoach. The rest goes to the government - basically as tax (a regressive one at that) - so that @TheScreamingEagles can trundle along through the Hope Valley every morning and evening.
If we nationalize the railways, those provincial services aren't magically going to start breaking even. They'll still need to be subsidized by the tax payer and London commuters. The question that should be asked is, is the franchising system worth the hassle? Is the outcome better for passengers and the tax payer? Is it worth the bureaucracy in the DfT that assesses the bids?
If labour really are retaining practically all their 2015 vote, despite the constant infighting, then the labour brand is even stronger than thought, and truly impressive. I don't get such iron allegiance to a fluid, self contradicting entity like a political party, but tribalism is super strong.
Hmm. You seem to be implying renationalisation must be bad because it's Corbyn's policy, and Corbyn has other policies on trade unions that you think are bad.
That would be OK as an anti-Corbyn argument, but it was just renationalisation per se I was asking about.
But you aren't going to get nationalisation on its own, you will get everything else Corbyn plans as well. Giving a lot more power to intransigent trade unions doesn't sound like a good way of making the railways run better to me.
None of this is going to happen anyway, because Theresa May is going to be reelected (almost certainly!).
I was just trying to ask a question about people's views of renationalisation of the railways.
If you are old enough to remember British Rail it is unlikely you'd ask the question. As a nationalised industry it evidently believed its purpose was to provide employment to its staff and passengers were an irritating inconvenience. If you didn't like it tough luck. For those who don't remember pre-privatisation industries (3 months for a phone line, anyone? Then wait in the whole day in the forlorn hope an engineer would actually show up) I can understand the superficial attraction - but look at the responses of people who have actual experience of them.
She didn't call an election because of Corbyn....She called an election to give here the clout she needs in dealing with the EU.and so no one at home or in the EU can use the excuse...' you don't even have a mandate.'
I have this strange feeling ....(it's my age don't you know) .... that had the Tories been behind in the polls that Mrs May would have found a way to struggle on as a majority government, having just passed all BREXIT legislation to date with ease.
"Prime Minister, what was it about a 20 point opinion poll lead that led you to call a general election three years early?"
Hmm. You seem to be implying renationalisation must be bad because it's Corbyn's policy, and Corbyn has other policies on trade unions that you think are bad.
That would be OK as an anti-Corbyn argument, but it was just renationalisation per se I was asking about.
But you aren't going to get nationalisation on its own, you will get everything else Corbyn plans as well. Giving a lot more power to intransigent trade unions doesn't sound like a good way of making the railways run better to me.
None of this is going to happen anyway, because Theresa May is going to be reelected (almost certainly!).
I was just trying to ask a question about people's views of renationalisation of the railways.
Personally, I'd be in favour of renationalisation if it were paired with massive infrastructure spending and a drastic increase of the network back to pre Beeching levels, but that will never happen, the car is King and it will ever be so mores the shame as a non driver.
Comments
https://www.wessexscene.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Jeremy_Corbyn_No_More_War_crop1.jpg
After
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/09/28/14/jeremy-corbyn-1.jpg
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/18842/rail-finance-statistical-release-2014-15.pdf
And because I'm a Southern season ticket holder I also think abolishing the Trades Union Act is a terrible idea.
Consider an innocent example: a would be employer desperately wants (for valid commercial reasons) a candidate to come and work for them. The duties of the proposed role would prevent the candidate from properly acting as an MP, and so to take up the role they must withdraw. In order to incentivise them, the employer offers a sign-on bonus. One would need a carve out in the legislation to permit this, hence "corruptly". It's surprisingly pithy, for legislative wording.
Effective as the Tory election machine is overall, it does repel significant numbers of people. I don't find Tories particularly objectionable most of the time, but in GE mode I loathe them and would vote for the devil to make them shut up.
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/862370600463060992
FRom what I have seen Southern is pretty much back to normal.
If the Lib Dems are on about 10 and UKIP are disintegrating, given the upper limit for the SNP/PC and the limited number of Green contested seats, Labour HAVE to be on high twenties to 30 right? Anything less and May is in high 400s seats.......
I'm thinking Corbyn and Labour, in the absence of a Lib revival, have to be jn the 30-35 band with the Tories 42-50. I mean 50-30-10-change would represent a massive landslide but would see Corbyn 'maintain votes' (by default)
Of course SLab will have to hastily delete records of their previous calls to restore them.
Presumably he will arrive by helicopter instead
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/862383476452073472
Labour could end up somewhere between 150-200. If they get 31-32, they will clearly have a better chance of getting near the upper end of that range, even if they will still lose dozens..
A fascinating preview of life under Corbyn.
That would be OK as an anti-Corbyn argument, but it was just renationalisation per se I was asking about.
But also a lot of people praised the Con 2015 message of vote Ed get Nicola. I think it was a big factor in delivering the Con majority. So the underlying Labour percentage may have been 33% say rather than the 31% they got. If that's true then it's possible for the Corbyn factor to have lost Labour 10% of its support and still have them polling at 30%. So there is no anomoly to explain.
Labour share at 30-35% available at 5/1 at Corals if you're tempted. I am but not going in right now. I also don't see Labour dropping below 150 seats. It could happen but I don't think it's likely.
Any person who corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, in consideration of any payment or promise of payment, and any person withdrawing in pursuance of the inducement or procurement, shall be guilty of an illegal payment. The key word is "candidate". According to the Guardian article, the Police declined to pursue the case because the Greens didn't have a candidate at the time the money was offered. It seems it's an offence to pay to get a candidate to stand down but not an offence to pay a party not to put one up in the first place. It wasn't clear from the article whether the Green Party took the money anyway. As it was supposedly an individual who made the offer the Lib Dems should be in the clear regardless.
Lots of tasty variables here.
Who on earth would go back to busses with separate conductors and drivers, with the conductors sharing the responsibility for the starting and stopping of the busses?
You didn't mention whether you used Southern, though.
Corbyn would.
By the way, "notme" you didn't mention whether your view of the problems at Southern - and again, apparently, the view that they were all down to the unions and that there was no problem before the dispute - were formed from experience of using Southern, or otherwise.
Unfortunately she doesn't appear to have a latter day equivalent to Margaret Thatcher's Willie Whitelaw to provide the necessary guidance.
Moreover, those of us on the ground (apologies if you are in fact actively campaigning for anyone) are mostly confirming the impression - Labour is maintaining all but a fraction of its 2015 vote (which was already down to the "always Labour" plus middle-class Guardianistas) and picking up some people from across the spectrum who like Corbyn's unassuming style and dislike the Empress May stuff. We're losing a trickle (e.g. Southam) who feel strongly about Hamas and the IRA but most people struggle to distinguish Hamas from humus and feel life has moved on from the IRA. And overall the polarisation of the election is giving Labour a boost.
Equally I believe the polls showing the Tories well ahead. It's obvious on the doorstep that ex-UKIP voters are switching to them, and that's the main story of the election. Roughly 45-30 is where we're at.
(In fairness, I cut it to 100-1 sharpish, and this was all when he only had about 18 nominators. Thanks to Margaret Beckett et al.)
PS A happy birthday to OGH. His majority grows ever larger.
https://twitter.com/louisemensch/status/862527930240577536
It is not mentioned here
http://navaltoday.com/2017/02/14/uss-george-h-w-bush-starts-isis-strikes-from-the-med/
The GHWBCSG consists of flagship aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), guided-missile cruisers USS Philippine Sea (CG 58) and USS Hue City (CG 66), and DESRON-22 guided-missile destroyers USS Laboon (DDG 58) and USS Truxtun (DDG 103).
On their mission in the Mediterranean, U.S. Navy ships are joined by the Danish frigate HDMS Peter Willemoes which set sail from Denmark on January 26.
But since ISIS has neither a navy, air force or anti-ship missiles, perhaps the Americans will survive without us -- that will save a few shakes of the magic money tree.
I was just trying to ask a question about people's views of renationalisation of the railways.
.....and despite Tony Kaye's efforts........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyTgEpVttBE
This is the problem, basically: the entire Labour leadership team and a lot of the membership don't need a Labour government and do not fear the consequences of a Tory one. Comfortably off and sheltered from reality they are playing a wonderful game. It is unforgiveable, quite frankly.
The principle of rail franchising is to get private companies (even if they are owned by other governments) to bid for the lowest subsidy (or highest premium in the case of the South Western, West Coast and East Coast franchises) to operate the trains. The margin made by these companies is not that big. Stagecoach did quite well on the first South West Trains franchise from 1996 to 2004, but they've paid well over the odds for the last 13 years.
As an example, my season ticket from Woking is £3,100 year. About £2,200 pays for the operation of the railway and a very small profit for Stagecoach. The rest goes to the government - basically as tax (a regressive one at that) - so that @TheScreamingEagles can trundle along through the Hope Valley every morning and evening.
If we nationalize the railways, those provincial services aren't magically going to start breaking even. They'll still need to be subsidized by the tax payer and London commuters. The question that should be asked is, is the franchising system worth the hassle? Is the outcome better for passengers and the tax payer? Is it worth the bureaucracy in the DfT that assesses the bids?
"Prime Minister, what was it about a 20 point opinion poll lead that led you to call a general election three years early?"