Best investment advice for the baby boomers is to remortgage,get taxpayer subsidy, lend to children to invest in housing, get more taxpayer subsidies and watch the bubble inflate
Certainly better investment advice than a recommendation to buy municipal bonds secured on the asset value of mass built council housing.
And Ed thinks our pension funds will do the heavy lifting.
Time to take an OU economics degree, tim, and vote Conservative.
Miss Vance, perhaps more surprising is the minimal divergence between the three main parties.
Its a trend I keep coming across - on non-party political issues, Coalition supporters are generally the happiest with 'things', Labour a bit less so, and UKIP significantly less so.....maybe they are the 'Unhappy Party?'
Schards..tim doesn't really know what he is talking about, it's what he is told to say...repeatedly..
But we must stop calling it the 'bunker', when Labour people are calling it the 'creche'.....looks like nurse is away today, indeed this week.....the only intervention on Gibraltar from Labour, Peter Hain's, has not proved popular.....
You are an intelligent guy, surely you can see why people who want out of the EU aren't jumping for joy at the prospect of a referendum proposed and led by a man who has no intention of leaving, will campaign to stay in, and has just been voted into government on the back of this stance?
Of course they should be jumping with joy, because it's the only chance they'll ever get, and it's absolutely certain to happen if the Conservatives get a majority. What you are effectively saying is that they don't think they'd win the referendum. I agree, as it happens, but UKIP keep telling us there's a majority in favour of leaving, and in any case, if there isn't, then there isn't. It's certainly a bit odd, one might use the term 'loony', to complain at being offered exactly what you've been asking for. As Dan Hannan put it, "What part of ‘Yes’ don’t you understand?":
As it stands only the Conservatives have offered a referendum, but if Labour put it in their 2015 manifesto the "vote UKIP get Labour" threat goes out of the window.
Isn't the best thing for UKIP for both to offer the referendum, and get disappointing vote shares?
Is Labour still attempting to divert attention because they've nothing concrete to say.
It appears so. The Marie Celeste Party.
But the "Marie Celeste Party" will be at the core of the next Goverment.
However, I do agree that Ed and co need to energise the political debate. They need to throw in a popular curveball like the nationalisation of the railways.
This morning I’ve been having a bit of Twitter knockabout with my friend Stefan Stern, who's taken issue with my claim in today’s paper that Labour is “slumping” in the polls. According to Stefan, Labour’s poll level is holding steady, whilst the Tories are simply experiencing a recovery in their own ratings. This is the Sunset Boulevard defence – “You used to be big … I am big, it’s the pictures that got small” – and we’re going to be hearing it a lot over the next few weeks. The tide isn’t coming in on Labour, the beach is merely moving towards the sea.
Is Labour still attempting to divert attention because they've nothing concrete to say.
It appears so. The Marie Celeste Party.
But the "Marie Celeste Party" will be at the core of the next Goverment.
However, I do agree that Ed and co need to energise the political debate. They need to throw in a popular curveball like the nationalisation of the railways.
You obviously didn't have the pleasure of travelling on British Rail, murali_s.
As it stands only the Conservatives have offered a referendum, but if Labour put it in their 2015 manifesto the "vote UKIP get Labour" threat goes out of the window
Only if you're foolish enough to believe it, given that large elements of the Labour Party would be dead against it. On the other hand, the Conservative Party would absolutely not tolerate reneging on it, even if Camerons was tempted to do so.
In any case, why would you prefer a Labour government+referendum to a Conservative government+ referendum? What about all those other issues UKIP stands for, on every single one of which Labour holds the exact opposite view?
Read this and then think back to the PB Tory stats geniuses attacking Mike yesterday
From Polling Observatory
"The recovery in Conservative figures has, however, produced a swathe of negative headlines for Labour : “Labour’s lead tumbles after difficult month for Ed Miliband” (Independent, August 6th); “Labour’s shrinking poll lead increases party jitters” (New Statesman, 23rd July); “Where is Labour“? (politics.co.uk, 31st July); “Labour slips in the polls as Miliband aide admits party fears over next election” (Daily Mail, 6th August). Long time Miliband critic Dan Hodges went one further in the Telegraph, declaring “the next election is becoming Mr Cameron’s to lose” A casual reader of such articles would be forgiven for thinking that Labour had lost the support of a significant chunk of the electorate, and that this was somehow related to things the Labour leadership had said or done. Yet there is little evidence for either.
In fact, our estimate, incorporating all the polling data, suggests Labour support is up half a point on last month, at 38.1%. The previous two months’ readings were almost identical: 38.4% in June, 37.7% in May. Labour have barely budged in our figures in four months. So why all the fuss? The problem seems to lie in two longstanding journalistic habits: the tendency to focus on poll leads, rather than shares, and to interpret the poll leads in terms of the prevailing Westminster Village narrative. Labour’s poll lead has indeed fallen, but as we have seen that is more down to the Conservative share recovering, which in turn is down to Tory voters who flirted with UKIP returning to the fold. The most likely explanation for the narrowing Labour poll lead therefore has nothing to do with anything Ed Miliband has said or done, but the dominant political narrative in recent weeks has been “Labour in crisis” following the public spat between Miliband and the leader of the Unite union Len McClusky over the unions’ role in Labour politics, and so journalists have framed the polling shift in these terms."
A good day to remember the PB Tory motto.
The PB Tories are always wrong, the PB Tories never learn.
The uplift observed is that of Barnes Wallis's bouncing bomb. The 38% dam is about to be breached.
Is Labour still attempting to divert attention because they've nothing concrete to say.
It appears so. The Marie Celeste Party.
But the "Marie Celeste Party" will be at the core of the next Goverment.
However, I do agree that Ed and co need to energise the political debate. They need to throw in a popular curveball like the nationalisation of the railways.
I'll ask the same questions that I ask whenever anyone brings up renationalising the railways: how will it work, how will it fix the problems, and what other problems may it introduce? In addition: have you thought of other ways of fixing the problems short of renationalisation.
Note: I am not necessarily against nationalisation of the railways. I just want to see it being down on sounds grounds and in the right way, and not as part of some ideological campaign.
Given that Brown took Public and Private debt from 300% of GDP to 500% of GDP, your assertion above can be filed under "b*****cks" as usual...
You need to edit that post, Rexel.
The starting point was less than 30% (29.8% at end Q1 2002).
The legacy left by Gordon was also under 500%, but still a spectacular 150% (153.5% at end Q1 2010).
The 500% bit was the increase in the ratio over eight years. Some achievement by the mighty Gord.
The numbers I quote are for public and private debt and are read from the graph to be found in the article linked to below which, itself, was taken from a McKinsey study.
Given that Brown took Public and Private debt from 300% of GDP to 500% of GDP, your assertion above can be filed under "b*****cks" as usual...
You need to edit that post, Rexel.
The starting point was less than 30% (29.8% at end Q1 2002).
The legacy left by Gordon was also under 500%, but still a spectacular 150% (153.5% at end Q1 2010).
The 500% bit was the increase in the ratio over eight years. Some achievement by the mighty Gord.
To be fair, he was helped by the global economic meltdown. You were trying to be fair, weren't you?
To be fair, the impact of the global meltdown is hardly discernible in the chart of debt as % GDP. The steepest part of the curve is when Brown was trying to buy the 2007 election that never happened...
In all cases, the losing party was led by an obvious clot; nothing else really explains 1992, when Kinnock managed to lose to Major, of all people, in the depths of a recession.
As to how one spots the clot, a good way is if the only or first thing you can remember about them casts them in a bad light.
Callaghan is famous for "what crisis?" and the winter of discontent. Foot is famous for his donkey jacket. Kinnock is famous for being the strikers' friend and "We're aaaaalriiiiiight!" Major is famous for White Wednesday. Hague is famous for being 16 at the Tory confewenthe. Howard is famous for something of the night. Brown is famous for stealth taxes. Miliband is famous for knifing his brother.
The above is nothing to do with popularity in polls then or now, any more than the most popular TV show is the best.
It also matters not whether what you remember is actually correct or fair. Callaghan didn't say "what crisis?", for example, but it is how he is remembered. Kinnock probably has least to complain about, since the way he is remembered, though discreditable, is also accurate.
As Cameron is a more plausible leader than Miliband, who of the two of them is more obviously the clot, Cameron's party will lead in vote share at the next GE. This need not mean Cameron wins, of course.
You've got this one backwards. If any of the winners had lost you'd be remembering them as clots.
According to Patrick Wintour, David Cameron has publicly apologised to Peter Cruddas. Quite right too, but he should have said it more effusively than: "I rather think I do owe him an apology".
Given that Brown took Public and Private debt from 300% of GDP to 500% of GDP, your assertion above can be filed under "b*****cks" as usual...
You need to edit that post, Rexel.
The starting point was less than 30% (29.8% at end Q1 2002).
The legacy left by Gordon was also under 500%, but still a spectacular 150% (153.5% at end Q1 2010).
The 500% bit was the increase in the ratio over eight years. Some achievement by the mighty Gord.
The numbers I quote are for public and private debt and are read from the graph to be found in the article linked to below which, itself, was taken from a McKinsey study.
The point is that the Brown boom will never, ever be repeated...
[apology accepted!]
I did jump the gun.
It would be interesting to see that chart updated. The deleveraging of the public sector and household debt has been modest over the past two years but the financial sector has substantially downsized. And the disproportionate increase in overall debt, when compared to other major economies, was mainly due to the size of our banks.
Will try and do an update over the next few days. I sense some more good news to announce!
Interesting development and this certainly brings Berwck into play.
The LDs, as the chart I published here last week showed, are at their most vulnerable when defending a seat without the incumbent MP.
Knowing North Northumberland very well it's amazing that Beith has held on so long. It might be recalled that he got into parliament in the by-election following the Lambton revelations.
That could be a very interesting seat indeed - Anne-Marie Trevelyan has been working hard to get the Conservatives back in contention and managed an impressive 8.3% swing last time.
This is the position Labour have been in the 4 months since their figures 'barely budged'.....
Dan Hodges uses a rum old argument on the topic
". And if people want to know the real reason why the voters are losing faith with Ed Miliband and his party, a new and highly sophisticated technique has been pioneered to get to the bottom of it all. It’s called asking them.
Just before parliament broke for the summer recess, YouGov had the temerity to ask people what they thought of Labour’s leader. And the answer was “not much”. According to their poll, he’s seen as “less trustworthy, decisive or competent than ex-prime minister Gordon Brown”. "
In all cases, the losing party was led by an obvious clot; nothing else really explains 1992, when Kinnock managed to lose to Major, of all people, in the depths of a recession.
As to how one spots the clot, a good way is if the only or first thing you can remember about them casts them in a bad light.
Callaghan is famous for "what crisis?" and the winter of discontent. Foot is famous for his donkey jacket. Kinnock is famous for being the strikers' friend and "We're aaaaalriiiiiight!" Major is famous for White Wednesday. Hague is famous for being 16 at the Tory confewenthe. Howard is famous for something of the night. Brown is famous for stealth taxes. Miliband is famous for knifing his brother.
The above is nothing to do with popularity in polls then or now, any more than the most popular TV show is the best.
It also matters not whether what you remember is actually correct or fair. Callaghan didn't say "what crisis?", for example, but it is how he is remembered. Kinnock probably has least to complain about, since the way he is remembered, though discreditable, is also accurate.
As Cameron is a more plausible leader than Miliband, who of the two of them is more obviously the clot, Cameron's party will lead in vote share at the next GE. This need not mean Cameron wins, of course.
You've got this one backwards. If any of the winners had lost you'd be remembering them as clots.
Of course. History is written by the winners. And it was a fun post!
Why won't Tony Blair come out and praise the Brown government's handling of the economic crisis? Does he believe that whatever he says will simply be hounded down. Or he is so embittered towards Brown that he won't do it? I'd be surprised by that as he doesn't come across as the kind to bear grudges. I can only think that Blair himself simply doesn't want Labour to win the next election.
As it stands only the Conservatives have offered a referendum, but if Labour put it in their 2015 manifesto the "vote UKIP get Labour" threat goes out of the window
Only if you're foolish enough to believe it, given that large elements of the Labour Party would be dead against it. On the other hand, the Conservative Party would absolutely not tolerate reneging on it, even if Camerons was tempted to do so.
In any case, why would you prefer a Labour government+referendum to a Conservative government+ referendum? What about all those other issues UKIP stands for, on every single one of which Labour holds the exact opposite view?
I don't see much difference between Labour and Conservatives on the broad strokes, just small disagreements on the micro details, so it wouldn't make a difference who made the offer
I'll ask the same questions that I ask whenever anyone brings up renationalising the railways: how will it work, how will it fix the problems, and what other problems may it introduce? In addition: have you thought of other ways of fixing the problems short of renationalisation.
Note: I am not necessarily against nationalisation of the railways. I just want to see it being down on sounds grounds and in the right way, and not as part of some ideological campaign.
OK, I'll have a go. Speaking just for myself:
1. It would work by declining to renew franchises as they expire. This is quite slow (I think there are just two expiring in the 2015-20 period) but I see that as good - the integrated organisation will build up gradually.The advantage is that the required compensation is basically £zero - a bit of money for some handover equipment etc. but nothing significant. We lose the money they would have paid for renewal, but that is largely fictitious, since they make it back (and lots more) out of the profit, which will now potentially go to the Treasury and/or the service instead.
2. The main advantage is that it really is a natural monopoly - the current arrangements have little effective competition - and one that receives significant though declining public subsidy, so it makes sense to make it subject to democratic debate - more or less subsidy, better service vs cheaper service, etc. The money now going to profits can be used either for the service or the commuters or the taxpayer, and priorities can be decided nationally. There is a risk that the Treasury cuts spending, but then that risk exists today already - it's just harder to pin down who is responsible.
3. The only obvious alternative that I can see is an integrated private national model like the National Lottery, which would provide integration but has no other obvious benefits. I can't see any advantage at all in regional franchises.
There is always an argument that private firms are more efficient and that this effect is larger than the net profit. It's not clear to me that this is currently the case - some of them are OK, some are crap - or that one would expect it to be, in the absence of genuine competition.
@jameskirkup: Bank rate anchored at 0.5pc til maybe 2017. Inflation knockout set at 2.5pc. Is there any rational case for holding cash? #spenditorloseit
It is not looking good for the OU admissions interview.
If you have the cash why would you take a government equity share or guarantee, at cost, instead of investing your own money in the deposit?
The only argument for taking government assistance would be if you expected house price deflation or if you could earn a better return on the funds from alternative investments. Taking either of the above options would be unlikely if a housing boom is on its way.
As it stands only the Conservatives have offered a referendum, but if Labour put it in their 2015 manifesto the "vote UKIP get Labour" threat goes out of the window
Only if you're foolish enough to believe it, given that large elements of the Labour Party would be dead against it. On the other hand, the Conservative Party would absolutely not tolerate reneging on it, even if Camerons was tempted to do so.
In any case, why would you prefer a Labour government+referendum to a Conservative government+ referendum? What about all those other issues UKIP stands for, on every single one of which Labour holds the exact opposite view?
Which would be more likely to win an out referendum?
One organised by DC, leading a divided party, with its leader campainging to stay in, joining with the other party leaders in scaremongering the populus?
Or one run by EM, showing obvious splits in his own party, and a now united Tory party working together with the BOO campaign team? To be sure of winning the out vote, we would need either of the two big parties to officially advocate out---a free vote may well be insufficient. Only a big party, working together, would effectively be able to rebut some of of the scary nonsense we'd hear (Listen to any of Clegg's comments on the EU for a sample. Or listen to the BBC news for more idea on how the obliique stay-in operation would operate).
According to Patrick Wintour, David Cameron has publicly apologised to Peter Cruddas. Quite right too, but he should have said it more effusively than: "I rather think I do owe him an apology".
I rather fancy a beer doesn't mean you've had a beer.
I thought it was only Putin that rather fancied a bear.
"UK subsidiary Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) JLR's first quarter net profit surged nearly 29 percent on yearly basis to GBP 304 million while revenues jumped 12.6 percent year-on-year to GBP 4,097 million in April-June quarter."
As it stands only the Conservatives have offered a referendum, but if Labour put it in their 2015 manifesto the "vote UKIP get Labour" threat goes out of the window
Only if you're foolish enough to believe it, given that large elements of the Labour Party would be dead against it. On the other hand, the Conservative Party would absolutely not tolerate reneging on it, even if Camerons was tempted to do so.
In any case, why would you prefer a Labour government+referendum to a Conservative government+ referendum? What about all those other issues UKIP stands for, on every single one of which Labour holds the exact opposite view?
Which would be more likely to win an out referendum?
One organised by DC, leading a divided party, with its leader campainging to stay in, joining with the other party leaders in scaremongering the populus?
Or one run by EM, showing obvious splits in his own party, and a now united Tory party working together with the BOO campaign team? To be sure of winning the out vote, we would need either of the two big parties to officially advocate out---a free vote may well be insufficient. Only a big party, working together, would effectively be able to rebut some of of the scary nonsense we'd hear (Listen to any of Clegg's comments on the EU for a sample. Or listen to the BBC news for more idea on how the obliique stay-in operation would operate).
So now you don't want a referendum, is that correct ? I mean he's giving you 4 years notice and you're saying you won't be ready.
Interesting development and this certainly brings Berwck into play.
The LDs, as the chart I published here last week showed, are at their most vulnerable when defending a seat without the incumbent MP.
Knowing North Northumberland very well it's amazing that Beith has held on so long. It might be recalled that he got into parliament in the by-election following the Lambton revelations.
Yes, his personal vote must have been substantial - a very decent guy and a very good MP.
I had quite a long chat with Anne-Marie Trevelyan and her agent before the last election. What was interesting was the amount of effort they and CCHQ were putting in to the seat, which clearly they weren't going to win. The reason obviously was to prepare the ground for when Sir Alan eventually retired. In the event, she got much closer than I think anyone would have expected, and I'd have thought she'd have a good chance next time round.
antifrank - it's perfectly obvious that railways are a natural monopoly. All the government has tried to do is hand out franchises. Given the fetish the right have for competition (though it doesn't always seem to work out that way) that's hardly ideal. Though it's hard to imagine lots of different companies all running trains on the same line.
''It would work by declining to renew franchises as they expire. This is quite slow.....''
Cheers mate. That means I travel for the rest of my working life on a route where the operator knows its going to lose the franchise. Any reason why they shouldn;t run it into the ground and take as much cash away as they can??
Thanks a bunch.
I don;t know if you're standing for a commutable constituency, but if so I hope this is is spelt out in spades by your opponents.
antifrank - it's perfectly obvious that railways are a natural monopoly. All the government has tried to do is hand out franchises. Given the fetish the right have for competition (though it doesn't always seem to work out that way) that's hardly ideal. Though it's hard to imagine lots of different companies all running trains on the same line.
Until you can choose between an Easytrain, Ryantrain and Virgin train from spot A to B there will be a crap service.
Why won't Tony Blair come out and praise the Brown government's handling of the economic crisis? Does he believe that whatever he says will simply be hounded down. Or he is so embittered towards Brown that he won't do it? I'd be surprised by that as he doesn't come across as the kind to bear grudges. I can only think that Blair himself simply doesn't want Labour to win the next election.
The Blairite orthodoxy is Labour must apologise. Miliband seems to have hammered out a compromise whereby the Bairites, Darling and Balls all shut up about the economy. I think there is a real danger this will gift the election to the blue team, and make Osborne look a tactical and economic genius, but then I'm not a top political pundit like Dan Hodges.
Oh, hold on. I've just described the situation as a disaster for Ed Miliband. Get the Telegraph on the phone.
Very strange decision from BoE. Not sure how employment works as a measure if the jobs being taken are zero hours based, minimum wage or the result of more giving up on finding work and choosing to be self employed. Surely overall growth at a sustained level and/or the inflation rate are better measures. But this is clearly excellent news for GO. I think it changes the entire dynamic of the next election. I now expect the Tories to at least get most seats on the back of a nice feelgood boom that will come to an end just around the time of an EU referendum.
As it stands only the Conservatives have offered a referendum, but if Labour put it in their 2015 manifesto the "vote UKIP get Labour" threat goes out of the window
Only if you're foolish enough to believe it, given that large elements of the Labour Party would be dead against it. On the other hand, the Conservative Party would absolutely not tolerate reneging on it, even if Camerons was tempted to do so.
In any case, why would you prefer a Labour government+referendum to a Conservative government+ referendum? What about all those other issues UKIP stands for, on every single one of which Labour holds the exact opposite view?
Which would be more likely to win an out referendum?
One organised by DC, leading a divided party, with its leader campainging to stay in, joining with the other party leaders in scaremongering the populus?
Or one run by EM, showing obvious splits in his own party, and a now united Tory party working together with the BOO campaign team? To be sure of winning the out vote, we would need either of the two big parties to officially advocate out---a free vote may well be insufficient. Only a big party, working together, would effectively be able to rebut some of of the scary nonsense we'd hear (Listen to any of Clegg's comments on the EU for a sample. Or listen to the BBC news for more idea on how the obliique stay-in operation would operate).
So now you don't want a referendum, is that correct ? I mean he's giving you 4 years notice and you're saying you won't be ready.
We want out of the EU, and currently, it seems as though a referendum is the best route. So bring it on.
But unlike some of my more gung-ho colleagues in UKIP, who believe an Out vote is 'nailed on', I'm taking a more cautious view. I'm simply trying to maximise the probability of the Out vote winning. And yes, the size of the majority will matter.
Will we look unready for the referendum? Of course we will, but so what?
antifrank - it's perfectly obvious that railways are a natural monopoly. All the government has tried to do is hand out franchises. Given the fetish the right have for competition (though it doesn't always seem to work out that way) that's hardly ideal. Though it's hard to imagine lots of different companies all running trains on the same line.
Until you can choose between an Easytrain, Ryantrain and Virgin train from spot A to B there will be a crap service.
Its not really privatised is it.
It is privatised. You're assuming privatisation equals competition? Not necessarily. Private monopolies have always been common. The point is how are you ever going to create competition. I can't see how it could be done, so renationalisation (however it's done) would see most senisble.
''It would work by declining to renew franchises as they expire. This is quite slow.....''
Cheers mate. That means I travel for the rest of my working life on a route where the operator knows its going to lose the franchise. Any reason why they shouldn;t run it into the ground and take as much cash away as they can??
Thanks a bunch.
I don;t know if you're standing for a commutable constituency, but if so I hope this is is spelt out in spades by your opponents.
Even worse, you then travel for ever after on a route where the operator knows there is no prospect, ever, of their losing business due to underinvestment or incompetence... or BR as it is otherwise known...
Until you can choose between an Easytrain, Ryantrain and Virgin train from spot A to B there will be a crap service.
More like when you can choose between Easytrack, Ryantrack and Virgin track.
Many of the problems are due to track and signalling, which are already owned by Nick Palmer's precious state.
The train companies want to operate the franchises because they are profitable. Telling them they can't have them any more will result in a terrible 'going to the dogs' period when the train operator isn;t interested any more and before the state has taken up the reins
It would be a worst of all worlds idea, suggested by people dominated by dogma and without a scintilla of experience on what it is like to commute.
And we wonder why 'others' has never been so high...
I have found a Cameron policy with which I disagree.
Dave has just said that we need a criminal prosecution and judicial system which stands up for the victim.
No we don't, Dave. We need a judicial system which stands up for the law and justice.
The Attorney General should only investigate prosecution counsel on the basis of whether his statements in court were accurate and relevant not whether they were politically correct.
I accept that the decision by the judge to take into account the evidence submitted by prosecuting counsel when deciding sentence might be reviewed on the grounds of a possible variance from established sentencing policy.
Would be interested to hear from DavidL and LIAMT, LJ on this issue.
To be sure of winning the out vote, we would need either of the two big parties to officially advocate out---a free vote may well be insufficient. Only a big party, working together, would effectively be able to rebut some of of the scary nonsense we'd hear (Listen to any of Clegg's comments on the EU for a sample. Or listen to the BBC news for more idea on how the obliique stay-in operation would operate).
Yes, you will probably lose the referendum, whenever it happens, for exactly the reason you give. That's why renegotiation is so important, because the effect of you getting the referendum you want would otherwise be to lock in ever-closer union.
Quite how you think a Labour government would help is a mystery. The chances of Labour holding a referendum are pretty low, but the chances of them doing so at a time when they might lose are zero.
As it stands only the Conservatives have offered a referendum, but if Labour put it in their 2015 manifesto the "vote UKIP get Labour" threat goes out of the window
Only if you're foolish enough to believe it, given that large elements of the Labour Party would be dead against it. On the other hand, the Conservative Party would absolutely not tolerate reneging on it, even if Camerons was tempted to do so.
In any case, why would you prefer a Labour government+referendum to a Conservative government+ referendum? What about all those other issues UKIP stands for, on every single one of which Labour holds the exact opposite view?
Which would be more likely to win an out referendum?
One organised by DC, leading a divided party, with its leader campainging to stay in, joining with the other party leaders in scaremongering the populus?
Or one run by EM, showing obvious splits in his own party, and a now united Tory party working together with the BOO campaign team? To be sure of winning the out vote, we would need either of the two big parties to officially advocate out---a free vote may well be insufficient. Only a big party, working together, would effectively be able to rebut some of of the scary nonsense we'd hear (Listen to any of Clegg's comments on the EU for a sample. Or listen to the BBC news for more idea on how the obliique stay-in operation would operate).
As described you're better with the Cameron version where he makes a big deal about a "renegotiation" then comes back with an opt-out from the social chapter that most voters oppose. There's no better way to demotivate the centre-left than setting up a referendum based on an obviously bogus negotiating triumph, where they lose even if they win.
As it stands only the Conservatives have offered a referendum, but if Labour put it in their 2015 manifesto the "vote UKIP get Labour" threat goes out of the window
Only if you're foolish enough to believe it, given that large elements of the Labour Party would be dead against it. On the other hand, the Conservative Party would absolutely not tolerate reneging on it, even if Camerons was tempted to do so.
In any case, why would you prefer a Labour government+referendum to a Conservative government+ referendum? What about all those other issues UKIP stands for, on every single one of which Labour holds the exact opposite view?
. Or listen to the BBC news for more idea on how the obliique stay-in operation would operate).
So now you don't want a referendum, is that correct ? I mean he's giving you 4 years notice and you're saying you won't be ready.
We want out of the EU, and currently, that seems as though a referendum is the best route. So bring it on.
But unlike some of my more gung-ho colleagues in UKIP, who believe a No vote is 'nailed on', I'm taking a more cautious view. I'm simply trying to maximise the probability of the No vote winning. And yes, the size of the majority will matter.
Will we look unready for the referendum? Of course we will.
I think you've got more of a problem than that. Say by 2017 there's a referendum. The only way to get an exit vote is in an alliance. You've by then just spent years slagging off the people you need to work with, you'll have had some of your wilder activitsts goading the 300 or so Tory MPs that you cost them 30 seats and perhaps a majority, your reputation for colourful characters saying outrageous things is well established. Who the hell will want to work with you ?
Very strange decision from BoE. Not sure how employment works as a measure if the jobs being taken are zero hours based, minimum wage or the result of more giving up on finding work and choosing to be self employed. Surely overall growth at a sustained level and/or the inflation rate are better measures. But this is clearly excellent news for GO. I think it changes the entire dynamic of the next election. I now expect the Tories to at least get most seats on the back of a nice feelgood boom that will come to an end just around the time of an EU referendum.
I'll ask the same questions that I ask whenever anyone brings up renationalising the railways: how will it work, how will it fix the problems, and what other problems may it introduce? In addition: have you thought of other ways of fixing the problems short of renationalisation.
Note: I am not necessarily against nationalisation of the railways. I just want to see it being down on sounds grounds and in the right way, and not as part of some ideological campaign.
(Snip good stuff)
There is always an argument that private firms are more efficient and that this effect is larger than the net profit. It's not clear to me that this is currently the case - some of them are OK, some are crap - or that one would expect it to be, in the absence of genuine competition.
Thanks for that answer. I have a few follow-up questions:
1) How would the ROSCO's be effected? The rolling stock will be needed, so would they be nationalised as well? Or would you continue to lease off the ROSCOs? If you buy the stock off the ROSCOs, where does the billions come from?
2) Would Open Access be kept, i.e. allowing other (private) companies to operate services where they feel there is a need and an opportunity? This may give an opportunity for competition and trials of new services at private-sector risk, especially wrt freight traffic.
3) How would you ensure that investment is maintained? Both Labour and Conservative governments have a poor track record in investing in BR. Would you keep up the investment that has been pouring into the system instead of giving it to (say) schools and hospitals?
4) What would you do about Network Rail's debt? Would it (and the entire nationalised system) go on the books, where it should be?
5) How would a nationalised system be organised internally, and how would this fit in with the EU's track / operations split (EU Directive 91/440) aimed at liberalising railway operations?
6) Also have you considered other private systems, such as a concessionary system rather than a franchise one?
7) Have you considered the impact on freight services of renationalisation?
These are not questions that necessarily act against renationalisation, but they are just some that need answering.
Until you can choose between an Easytrain, Ryantrain and Virgin train from spot A to B there will be a crap service.
More like when you can choose between Easytrack, Ryantrack and Virgin track.
Many of the problems are due to track and signalling, which are already owned by Nick Palmer's precious state.
The train companies want to operate the franchises because they are profitable. Telling them they can't have them any more will result in a terrible 'going to the dogs' period when the train operator isn;t interested any more and before the state has taken up the reins
It would be a worst of all worlds idea, suggested by people dominated by dogma and without a scintilla of experience on what it is like to commute.
And we wonder why 'others' has never been so high...
How would that work; my choice of train is dependent on WHEN i want to travel, and where I want to get to. Further, I have one "choice" of line on which to travel; are you seriously suggesting that there should be two or three tracks parallel to each other?
Having nationalised the railways, labour would be desperate to hide any failure (just as they were with the NHS).
Punctuality figures would doubtless be 'cooked' so that everything appears wonderful.
Who would be fooled? Much spin from politicians and even astroturfers on pb is pointless since the contrast with voters' day-to-day experience is too great. It used to be said that one reason John Major lost was that rail privatisation made commuting worse. My own theory is that Bob Crowe's strikes installed Boris as mayor.
I'll ask the same questions that I ask whenever anyone brings up renationalising the railways: how will it work, how will it fix the problems, and what other problems may it introduce? In addition: have you thought of other ways of fixing the problems short of renationalisation.
Note: I am not necessarily against nationalisation of the railways. I just want to see it being down on sounds grounds and in the right way, and not as part of some ideological campaign.
(Snip good stuff)
There is always an argument that private firms are more efficient and that this effect is larger than the net profit. It's not clear to me that this is currently the case - some of them are OK, some are crap - or that one would expect it to be, in the absence of genuine competition.
Thanks for that answer. I have a few follow-up questions:
1) How would the ROSCO's be effected? The rolling stock will be needed, so would they be nationalised as well? Or would you continue to lease off the ROSCOs? If you buy the stock off the ROSCOs, where does the billions come from?
These are not questions that necessarily act against renationalisation, but they are just some that need answering.
(This may be getting off-topic for PB...)
Two further issues I'd add JJ
1. what about fully depreciated equipment; do you buy this at "market value" which effectively means some TOCs will charge a ransom price 2. Nobody has mentioned the employees - arguably the main asset !
Very strange decision from BoE. Not sure how employment works as a measure if the jobs being taken are zero hours based, minimum wage or the result of more giving up on finding work and choosing to be self employed. Surely overall growth at a sustained level and/or the inflation rate are better measures. But this is clearly excellent news for GO. I think it changes the entire dynamic of the next election. I now expect the Tories to at least get most seats on the back of a nice feelgood boom that will come to an end just around the time of an EU referendum.
You expected Romney to win too - Just saying
I was 100% convinced!! I am being more careful this time. Expecting the Tories to win most seats is not the same as saying that they will. But the fact is that Mark Carney has today given the man who appointed him a very, very nice present. I'd expect Osborne to make the most of it, though I worry about the longer term consequences of another consumer fuelled boom on the back of rising house prices.
It also matters not whether what you remember is actually correct or fair. Callaghan didn't say "what crisis?", for example, but it is how he is remembered. Kinnock probably has least to complain about, since the way he is remembered, though discreditable, is also accurate.
As Cameron is a more plausible leader than Miliband, who of the two of them is more obviously the clot, Cameron's party will lead in vote share at the next GE. This need not mean Cameron wins, of course.
You've got this one backwards. If any of the winners had lost you'd be remembering them as clots.
Of course. History is written by the winners. And it was a fun post!
Eh? How does that work? The losers could have won, but only by being the lesser clot. The Kinnock results of 1987 and 1992 and the Major results of 1992 and 1997 show that this is relative.
My point is a very simple one, which is that to know who was going to win the next general election, you just had to look at the PM candidates. On that basis, every result from 1979 one was thoroughly predictable, and widely predicted at the time.
The trick is to ignore the polling, all of it, and just focus on the relative qualities of the leaders. By what criteria was Kinnock a more credible PM than Major? Hague than Blair?
are you seriously suggesting that there should be two or three tracks parallel to each other?
No. As has been pointed out, railways cannot be made to compete with each other the same as other services.
So we either have a private monopoly or a public monopoly.
The private monopoly has the sanction of the operator losing a profitable service if the service is cr*p. With a public monopoly there is no sanction.
Nick Palmer's plan is to take up the franchises as they expire. But they don't expire for many years in some cases.
So we will have a 'dead zone' period where the private operator is just marking time until the state takes over. Not exactly an encouragement to running an efficient service.
It's a big like a person working a three month notice. You don;t exactly bust a gut over that period, eh?
RMT says Jump - and Labour's nationalisation apologists say 'how high'? Nationalisation gives politicians more opportunities for directing 'investment' for pork barrel pet projects.
Having nationalised the railways, labour would be desperate to hide any failure (just as they were with the NHS).
Punctuality figures would doubtless be 'cooked' so that everything appears wonderful.
I knew someone who was in the team responsible for timetabling and punctuality figures, and under BR they were anything but cooked. The same cannot be said under the current system.
BR from the 1980s onwards had the great advantage of having a government who cared little for it, and let it go on its merry way without tinkering or listening overly to the unions. The Serpell Report was commissioned and (thankfully) ignored by Thatcher, and BR was allowed to move to a sector-based organisation from a regional-based one. Best of all (but saddest for British industry) they were allowed to source rolling stock from abroad.
The large-scale line closures - which had been ongoing throughout the 1970s - also stopped in the early 1980s with the Woodhead line. The government eventually listened about the Settle and Carlisle route, something the railways were thankful for when the WCML upgrade started.
If Thatcher was really the anti-railway person she was made out to be, then the Serpell Report would have been implemented in some form.
As it stands only the Conservatives have offered a referendum, but if Labour put it in their 2015 manifesto the "vote UKIP get Labour" threat goes out of the window
Only if you're foolish enough to believe it, given that large elements of the Labour Party would be dead against it. On the other hand, the Conservative Party would absolutely not tolerate reneging on it, even if Camerons was tempted to do so.
In any case, why would you prefer a Labour government+referendum to a Conservative government+ referendum? What about all those other issues UKIP stands for, on every single one of which Labour holds the exact opposite view?
. Or listen to the BBC news for more idea on how the obliique stay-in operation would operate).
So now you don't want a referendum, is that correct ? I mean he's giving you 4 years notice and you're saying you won't be ready.
We want out of the EU, and currently, that seems as though a referendum is the best route. So bring it on.
But unlike some of my more gung-ho colleagues in UKIP, who believe a No vote is 'nailed on', I'm taking a more cautious view. I'm simply trying to maximise the probability of the No vote winning. And yes, the size of the majority will matter.
Will we look unready for the referendum? Of course we will.
I think you've got more of a problem than that. Say by 2017 there's a referendum. The only way to get an exit vote is in an alliance. You've by then just spent years slagging off the people you need to work with, you'll have had some of your wilder activitsts goading the 300 or so Tory MPs that you cost them 30 seats and perhaps a majority, your reputation for colourful characters saying outrageous things is well established. Who the hell will want to work with you ?
It's a possible scenario. If the Tories readily got in bed with the L/Dems who have been slagging each other off for more years than I can count; then they can cuddle up to UKIP to get the desired no vote.
As it stands only the Conservatives have offered a referendum, but if Labour put it in their 2015 manifesto the "vote UKIP get Labour" threat goes out of the window
Only if you're foolish enough to believe it, given that large elements of the Labour Party would be dead against it. On the other hand, the Conservative Party would absolutely not tolerate reneging on it, even if Camerons was tempted to do so.
In any case, why would you prefer a Labour government+referendum to a Conservative government+ referendum? What about all those other issues UKIP stands for, on every single one of which Labour holds the exact opposite view?
. Or listen to the BBC news for more idea on how the obliique stay-in operation would operate).
I think you've got more of a problem than that. Say by 2017 there's a referendum. The only way to get an exit vote is in an alliance. You've by then just spent years slagging off the people you need to work with, you'll have had some of your wilder activitsts goading the 300 or so Tory MPs that you cost them 30 seats and perhaps a majority, your reputation for colourful characters saying outrageous things is well established. Who the hell will want to work with you ?
It's a possible scenario. If the Tories readily got in bed with the L/Dems who have been slagging each other off for more years than I can count; then they can cuddle up to UKIP to get the desired no vote.
This isn't about the Tories, this is about you. Why for example if a ref. takes place would they want to give you the credit for it, when de facto you've campaigned against the people putting it in to legislation.
RMT says Jump - and Labour's nationalisation apologists say 'how high'? Nationalisation gives politicians more opportunities for directing 'investment' for pork barrel pet projects.
RMT says Jump - and Labour's nationalisation apologists say 'how high'?
But labour aren;t suggesting a proper buyout nationalisation. They don;t have the money.
They are simply giving the train companies a long notice period.
Who in their right mind works 100% in a notice period? You and your employer are going your separate ways and you don;t give a t*ss about the job any more. You just go through the motions.
RMT says Jump - and Labour's nationalisation apologists say 'how high'? Nationalisation gives politicians more opportunities for directing 'investment' for pork barrel pet projects.
are you seriously suggesting that there should be two or three tracks parallel to each other?
No. As has been pointed out, railways cannot be made to compete with each other the same as other services.
So we either have a private monopoly or a public monopoly.
The private monopoly has the sanction of the operator losing a profitable service if the service is cr*p. With a public monopoly there is no sanction.
Nick Palmer's plan is to take up the franchises as they expire. But they don't expire for many years in some cases.
So we will have a 'dead zone' period where the private operator is just marking time until the state takes over. Not exactly an encouragement to running an efficient service.
It's a big like a person working a three month notice. You don;t exactly bust a gut over that period, eh?
That's a problem today, in the period where the franchisee doesn't know if they'll get renewed or not.
Apologies to JJ and others who have raised issues, but they go further than I've time for at the moment - basically my working hours are full of work and my private hours are full of Broxtowe. Not ideal as I'd like to have discussed further, but can only contribute now and then when a spare 10 minutes opens up.
they were allowed to source rolling stock from abroad.
What rolling stock?? On my line they never sourced rolling stock from anywhere under BR. When South West Trains took over they were still using the old slam door stuff from the 50s.
My point is a very simple one, which is that to know who was going to win the next general election, you just had to look at the PM candidates. On that basis, every result from 1979 one was thoroughly predictable, and widely predicted at the time.
The trick is to ignore the polling, all of it, and just focus on the relative qualities of the leaders. By what criteria was Kinnock a more credible PM than Major? Hague than Blair?
Sobvious innit?
I have great sympathy with your view, Mr. Bond and was entertained by the manner in which you expressed it.
But the Artful Dodger's observation that hindsight works in favour of the reputations of those winners which serve as PM is probably a valid, if party pooping, observation.
Was Blair a better politician/leader/PM than Hague? I am not sure we would have answered that question in the affirmative had Hague won the 2001 election.
That could be a very interesting seat indeed - Anne-Marie Trevelyan has been working hard to get the Conservatives back in contention and managed an impressive 8.3% swing last time.
FWIW, Baxter has Berwick as a close 3-way contest:
are you seriously suggesting that there should be two or three tracks parallel to each other?
No. As has been pointed out, railways cannot be made to compete with each other the same as other services.
So we either have a private monopoly or a public monopoly.
The private monopoly has the sanction of the operator losing a profitable service if the service is cr*p. With a public monopoly there is no sanction.
Nick Palmer's plan is to take up the franchises as they expire. But they don't expire for many years in some cases.
So we will have a 'dead zone' period where the private operator is just marking time until the state takes over. Not exactly an encouragement to running an efficient service.
It's a big like a person working a three month notice. You don;t exactly bust a gut over that period, eh?
That's a problem today, in the period where the franchisee doesn't know if they'll get renewed or not.
Apologies to JJ and others who have raised issues, but they go further than I've time for at the moment - basically my working hours are full of work and my private hours are full of Broxtowe. Not ideal as I'd like to have discussed further, but can only contribute now and then when a spare 10 minutes opens up.
May I respectfully suggest that the McNulty report is read. Commissioned by Adonis and continued by Hammond it's a thoroughly researched set of proposals to reduce operating costs of the railways by 30%. A vertically integrated region is proposed as a pilot, but not that it be state-run (I think) - Network Rail has already implemented the recommendation to adopt a regionalised structure so that the fragmentation of the 1990s structure is partially mitigated. Changes to franchising to bring about cost incentives are also underway.
It'll be a shame if renationalisation is launched as an election gimmick - it'll never get past the EU and McNulty is already making effective change happen,.
are you seriously suggesting that there should be two or three tracks parallel to each other?
No. As has been pointed out, railways cannot be made to compete with each other the same as other services.
So we either have a private monopoly or a public monopoly.
The private monopoly has the sanction of the operator losing a profitable service if the service is cr*p. With a public monopoly there is no sanction.
Nick Palmer's plan is to take up the franchises as they expire. But they don't expire for many years in some cases.
So we will have a 'dead zone' period where the private operator is just marking time until the state takes over. Not exactly an encouragement to running an efficient service.
It's a big like a person working a three month notice. You don;t exactly bust a gut over that period, eh?
That's a problem today, in the period where the franchisee doesn't know if they'll get renewed or not.
Apologies to JJ and others who have raised issues, but they go further than I've time for at the moment - basically my working hours are full of work and my private hours are full of Broxtowe. Not ideal as I'd like to have discussed further, but can only contribute now and then when a spare 10 minutes opens up.
Fair enough Nick. IANAE on the structure of the railways, but I do passionately want any changes to be the right changes - i.e. improve things.
"That's a problem today, in the period where the franchisee doesn't know if they'll get renewed or not."
But the franchises have a reason to perform well towards the end of their franchise - they want to win it again. Performing poorly would make that less likely.
they were allowed to source rolling stock from abroad.
What rolling stock?? On my line they never sourced rolling stock from anywhere under BR. When South West Trains took over they were still using the old slam door stuff from the 50s.
Rolling stock 'lives' for 30-40 years - witness the HST's that were introduced from 1976 and still going strong after re-engining and refurbishment. Therefore being on 1950s rolling stock into the mid to late 1980s and into the 1990s was hardly surprising.
It was not made any easier by the unofficial moratorium on buying rolling stock on the run-up to privatisation - I think it was something like three years with no orders.
One thing that sped up rolling-stock replacement was safety issued, like the banning of older carriages that were less crash-proof.
Mr Hodges alway makes me smile - Leo McGarry indeed!
"So over the last couple of days several people have decided that Ed Miliband’s big problem is that he’s on holiday. They claim that if he wasn’t on holiday, but instead popping up on our television screens and in our papers, parroting meaningless platitudes about “One Nation”, Labour would be soaring ahead. “Oooh, look dear, it’s Ed Miliband talking about One Nation again”. “Well, he may be spouting nonsense, but at least the lad isn’t idling away his summer in the south of France. He’s got my vote”.
Another thesis is that it’s not Ed Miliband’s fault at all, but his advisers' fault. Ed’s great, but he’s got a team of losers around him. Or, he hasn’t got a big enough team of losers around him. If only he had Peter Mandelson or Jim Messina or Leo McGarry working for him, his problems would be solved. It’s not that Ed hasn’t got anything that even remotely resembles a coherent economic policy, for example. It’s just that he hasn’t got anyone who can present his totally incoherent economic policy in the right way."
RMT says Jump - and Labour's nationalisation apologists say 'how high'? Nationalisation gives politicians more opportunities for directing 'investment' for pork barrel pet projects.
Now be fair - Nationalisation was the only Unite policy it's members were in support of from the ones they were polled on....
If crossover occurs before the end of this year and panic breaks out amongst labour ranks will they have enough time politically to change leader or will it be seen a desperation?
Your theory did not work in 1979 nor in 1970 - the last two occasions when the Tories have been returned with working majorities.
The last two occasions were 1992 and 1987, surely.
I've looked back at 8 elections and forward 1, and this angle seems pretty robust to me.
Where there is a difference in candidate quality, the result is foreseeably obvious. This isn't a party political point. It was obvious Blair would win 3 times; it was obvious Thatcher would win 3 times; it was obvious Kinnock would lose twice.
Re 1979, Callaghan had lost control, had run out of ideas and was and is associated with union anarchy - a 1960s figure. Thatcher was a thoroughly modern figure. It was obvious who would win and I recall the same being said, at the time, for those reasons.
Re 1970, choosing between Heath and Wilson was really no choice at all; both were detached, overeducated, underprincipled Oxford toffs. The fact that there were 4 close elections, with little to choose in poll share, says to me that these were two clots of almost identical demerit.
What would have been interesting would have been an election contested by, say, Kinnock versus Duncan-Smith. That would have been akin to the Heath-Wilson confrontations in which two abject mediocrities, both differently unfit for the post, fought it out.
Your theory did not work in 1979 nor in 1970 - the last two occasions when the Tories have been returned with working majorities.
The last two occasions were 1992 and 1987, surely.
I've looked back at 8 elections and forward 1, and this angle seems pretty robust to me.
Where there is a difference in candidate quality, the result is foreseeably obvious. This isn't a party political point. It was obvious Blair would win 3 times; it was obvious Thatcher would win 3 times; it was obvious Kinnock would lose twice.
Re 1979, Callaghan had lost control, had run out of ideas and was and is associated with union anarchy - a 1960s figure. Thatcher was a thoroughly modern figure. It was obvious who would win and I recall the same being said, at the time, for those reasons.
Re 1970, choosing between Heath and Wilson was really no choice at all; both were detached, overeducated, underprincipled Oxford toffs. The fact that there were 4 close elections, with little to choose in poll share, says to me that these were two clots of almost identical demerit.
What would have been interesting would have been an election contested by, say, Kinnock versus Duncan-Smith. That would have been akin to the Heath-Wilson confrontations in which two abject mediocrities, both differently unfit for the post, fought it out.
As has been discussed on here several times before including quite recently , you are looking at 1979 through the eyes of hindsight . The polls of the time showed that Callaghan was preffered to Thatcher by the majority of voters and the Conservatives won despite this rather than some mythical preference for her . ,
Comments
And Ed thinks our pension funds will do the heavy lifting.
Time to take an OU economics degree, tim, and vote Conservative.
Define the 'O' as you wish.
Labour 1.83 > 1.93 (was 1.5 a few months ago)
Con 2.12 > 2.2
Crossover this year ?
Bongo Bongo Land is now trending on Twitter, so say what you like about Godfrey Bloom, but he's put that place on the map.
LittleLostLad is consistently very funny on twitter IMO
Isn't the best thing for UKIP for both to offer the referendum, and get disappointing vote shares?
However, I do agree that Ed and co need to energise the political debate. They need to throw in a popular curveball like the nationalisation of the railways.
http://www.openculture.com/2008/03/richard_feynman_on_the_bongos.html
(This one's a special treat for Richard T)
The 'Sunset Boulevard Defence'.....like it.....are you ready for your close up, Mr Miliband?
In any case, why would you prefer a Labour government+referendum to a Conservative government+ referendum? What about all those other issues UKIP stands for, on every single one of which Labour holds the exact opposite view?
As for 'always being wrong' - how's your Falkirk non-story doing? We've got half the time before the GE to pore over it......
You have been warned.
Osborne is the Brown bubble on steroids
Given that Brown took Public and Private debt from 300% of GDP to 500% of GDP, your assertion above can be filed under "b*****cks" as usual...
"Labour are now down almost four points from their peak, and approaching their lowest scores since Ed Miliband took over as leader."
http://sotonpolitics.org/2013/05/02/polling-observatory-24-blue-revival-purple-advance/
This is the position Labour have been in the 4 months since their figures 'barely budged'.....
Note: I am not necessarily against nationalisation of the railways. I just want to see it being down on sounds grounds and in the right way, and not as part of some ideological campaign.
The starting point was less than 30% (29.8% at end Q1 2002).
The legacy left by Gordon was also under 500%, but still a spectacular 150% (153.5% at end Q1 2010).
The 500% bit was the increase in the ratio over eight years. Some achievement by the mighty Gord.
[Just noticed that you were stating public and private debt. My apologies. My stats are just public sector net debt].
http://tinyurl.com/l276gz2
The point is that the Brown boom will never, ever be repeated...
[apology accepted!]
And given the accurate figures, why on earth should anyone want to be fair?
Richard Delingpole
Breaking news: Bongo Bongo land recalls ambassador. Govt admits "We didn't know it was a real place."
It would be interesting to see that chart updated. The deleveraging of the public sector and household debt has been modest over the past two years but the financial sector has substantially downsized. And the disproportionate increase in overall debt, when compared to other major economies, was mainly due to the size of our banks.
Will try and do an update over the next few days. I sense some more good news to announce!
The LDs, as the chart I published here last week showed, are at their most vulnerable when defending a seat without the incumbent MP.
Knowing North Northumberland very well it's amazing that Beith has held on so long. It might be recalled that he got into parliament in the by-election following the Lambton revelations.
". And if people want to know the real reason why the voters are losing faith with Ed Miliband and his party, a new and highly sophisticated technique has been pioneered to get to the bottom of it all. It’s called asking them.
Just before parliament broke for the summer recess, YouGov had the temerity to ask people what they thought of Labour’s leader. And the answer was “not much”. According to their poll, he’s seen as “less trustworthy, decisive or competent than ex-prime minister Gordon Brown”. "
Bongo Bongo land recognised by UKIP but not Belgium.
1. It would work by declining to renew franchises as they expire. This is quite slow (I think there are just two expiring in the 2015-20 period) but I see that as good - the integrated organisation will build up gradually.The advantage is that the required compensation is basically £zero - a bit of money for some handover equipment etc. but nothing significant. We lose the money they would have paid for renewal, but that is largely fictitious, since they make it back (and lots more) out of the profit, which will now potentially go to the Treasury and/or the service instead.
2. The main advantage is that it really is a natural monopoly - the current arrangements have little effective competition - and one that receives significant though declining public subsidy, so it makes sense to make it subject to democratic debate - more or less subsidy, better service vs cheaper service, etc. The money now going to profits can be used either for the service or the commuters or the taxpayer, and priorities can be decided nationally. There is a risk that the Treasury cuts spending, but then that risk exists today already - it's just harder to pin down who is responsible.
3. The only obvious alternative that I can see is an integrated private national model like the National Lottery, which would provide integration but has no other obvious benefits. I can't see any advantage at all in regional franchises.
There is always an argument that private firms are more efficient and that this effect is larger than the net profit. It's not clear to me that this is currently the case - some of them are OK, some are crap - or that one would expect it to be, in the absence of genuine competition.
Interesting.
It is not looking good for the OU admissions interview.
If you have the cash why would you take a government equity share or guarantee, at cost, instead of investing your own money in the deposit?
The only argument for taking government assistance would be if you expected house price deflation or if you could earn a better return on the funds from alternative investments. Taking either of the above options would be unlikely if a housing boom is on its way.
http://d18lkz4dllo6v2.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/entry/2013-08-06/Osbourne-nursery.jpg?w=300
One organised by DC, leading a divided party, with its leader campainging to stay in, joining with the other party leaders in scaremongering the populus?
Or one run by EM, showing obvious splits in his own party, and a now united Tory party working together with the BOO campaign team? To be sure of winning the out vote, we would need either of the two big parties to officially advocate out---a free vote may well be insufficient. Only a big party, working together, would effectively be able to rebut some of of the scary nonsense we'd hear (Listen to any of Clegg's comments on the EU for a sample. Or listen to the BBC news for more idea on how the obliique stay-in operation would operate).
"UK subsidiary Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) JLR's first quarter net profit surged nearly 29 percent on yearly basis to GBP 304 million while revenues jumped 12.6 percent year-on-year to GBP 4,097 million in April-June quarter."
I had quite a long chat with Anne-Marie Trevelyan and her agent before the last election. What was interesting was the amount of effort they and CCHQ were putting in to the seat, which clearly they weren't going to win. The reason obviously was to prepare the ground for when Sir Alan eventually retired. In the event, she got much closer than I think anyone would have expected, and I'd have thought she'd have a good chance next time round.
Cheers mate. That means I travel for the rest of my working life on a route where the operator knows its going to lose the franchise. Any reason why they shouldn;t run it into the ground and take as much cash away as they can??
Thanks a bunch.
I don;t know if you're standing for a commutable constituency, but if so I hope this is is spelt out in spades by your opponents.
Its not really privatised is it.
Oh, hold on. I've just described the situation as a disaster for Ed Miliband. Get the Telegraph on the phone.
Islam is way more English than the EDL
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100230090/islam-is-way-more-english-than-the-edl/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
But unlike some of my more gung-ho colleagues in UKIP, who believe an Out vote is 'nailed on', I'm taking a more cautious view. I'm simply trying to maximise the probability of the Out vote winning. And yes, the size of the majority will matter.
Will we look unready for the referendum? Of course we will, but so what?
More like when you can choose between Easytrack, Ryantrack and Virgin track.
Many of the problems are due to track and signalling, which are already owned by Nick Palmer's precious state.
The train companies want to operate the franchises because they are profitable. Telling them they can't have them any more will result in a terrible 'going to the dogs' period when the train operator isn;t interested any more and before the state has taken up the reins
It would be a worst of all worlds idea, suggested by people dominated by dogma and without a scintilla of experience on what it is like to commute.
And we wonder why 'others' has never been so high...
I have found a Cameron policy with which I disagree.
Dave has just said that we need a criminal prosecution and judicial system which stands up for the victim.
No we don't, Dave. We need a judicial system which stands up for the law and justice.
The Attorney General should only investigate prosecution counsel on the basis of whether his statements in court were accurate and relevant not whether they were politically correct.
I accept that the decision by the judge to take into account the evidence submitted by prosecuting counsel when deciding sentence might be reviewed on the grounds of a possible variance from established sentencing policy.
Would be interested to hear from DavidL and LIAMT, LJ on this issue.
Quite how you think a Labour government would help is a mystery. The chances of Labour holding a referendum are pretty low, but the chances of them doing so at a time when they might lose are zero.
Having nationalised the railways, labour would be desperate to hide any failure (just as they were with the NHS).
Punctuality figures would doubtless be 'cooked' so that everything appears wonderful.
1) How would the ROSCO's be effected? The rolling stock will be needed, so would they be nationalised as well? Or would you continue to lease off the ROSCOs? If you buy the stock off the ROSCOs, where does the billions come from?
2) Would Open Access be kept, i.e. allowing other (private) companies to operate services where they feel there is a need and an opportunity? This may give an opportunity for competition and trials of new services at private-sector risk, especially wrt freight traffic.
3) How would you ensure that investment is maintained? Both Labour and Conservative governments have a poor track record in investing in BR. Would you keep up the investment that has been pouring into the system instead of giving it to (say) schools and hospitals?
4) What would you do about Network Rail's debt? Would it (and the entire nationalised system) go on the books, where it should be?
5) How would a nationalised system be organised internally, and how would this fit in with the EU's track / operations split (EU Directive 91/440) aimed at liberalising railway operations?
6) Also have you considered other private systems, such as a concessionary system rather than a franchise one?
7) Have you considered the impact on freight services of renationalisation?
These are not questions that necessarily act against renationalisation, but they are just some that need answering.
(This may be getting off-topic for PB...)
R5L running big on "Polar bear found dead in Arctic."
How is that news?
Now, "Polar bear found dead in Antarctic" would be news.
1. what about fully depreciated equipment; do you buy this at "market value" which effectively means some TOCs will charge a ransom price
2. Nobody has mentioned the employees - arguably the main asset !
My point is a very simple one, which is that to know who was going to win the next general election, you just had to look at the PM candidates. On that basis, every result from 1979 one was thoroughly predictable, and widely predicted at the time.
The trick is to ignore the polling, all of it, and just focus on the relative qualities of the leaders. By what criteria was Kinnock a more credible PM than Major? Hague than Blair?
Sobvious innit?
No. As has been pointed out, railways cannot be made to compete with each other the same as other services.
So we either have a private monopoly or a public monopoly.
The private monopoly has the sanction of the operator losing a profitable service if the service is cr*p. With a public monopoly there is no sanction.
Nick Palmer's plan is to take up the franchises as they expire. But they don't expire for many years in some cases.
So we will have a 'dead zone' period where the private operator is just marking time until the state takes over. Not exactly an encouragement to running an efficient service.
It's a big like a person working a three month notice. You don;t exactly bust a gut over that period, eh?
Your theory did not work in 1979 nor in 1970 - the last two occasions when the Tories have been returned with working majorities.
BR from the 1980s onwards had the great advantage of having a government who cared little for it, and let it go on its merry way without tinkering or listening overly to the unions. The Serpell Report was commissioned and (thankfully) ignored by Thatcher, and BR was allowed to move to a sector-based organisation from a regional-based one. Best of all (but saddest for British industry) they were allowed to source rolling stock from abroad.
The large-scale line closures - which had been ongoing throughout the 1970s - also stopped in the early 1980s with the Woodhead line. The government eventually listened about the Settle and Carlisle route, something the railways were thankful for when the WCML upgrade started.
If Thatcher was really the anti-railway person she was made out to be, then the Serpell Report would have been implemented in some form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpell_Report
But labour aren;t suggesting a proper buyout nationalisation. They don;t have the money.
They are simply giving the train companies a long notice period.
Who in their right mind works 100% in a notice period? You and your employer are going your separate ways and you don;t give a t*ss about the job any more. You just go through the motions.
Submit and consider all relevant facts and base judgement and on the facts and the law.
Apply consistent and transparent sentencing policies.
Apologies to JJ and others who have raised issues, but they go further than I've time for at the moment - basically my working hours are full of work and my private hours are full of Broxtowe. Not ideal as I'd like to have discussed further, but can only contribute now and then when a spare 10 minutes opens up.
The Summer of discontent continues.
What rolling stock?? On my line they never sourced rolling stock from anywhere under BR. When South West Trains took over they were still using the old slam door stuff from the 50s.
My point is a very simple one, which is that to know who was going to win the next general election, you just had to look at the PM candidates. On that basis, every result from 1979 one was thoroughly predictable, and widely predicted at the time.
The trick is to ignore the polling, all of it, and just focus on the relative qualities of the leaders. By what criteria was Kinnock a more credible PM than Major? Hague than Blair?
Sobvious innit?
I have great sympathy with your view, Mr. Bond and was entertained by the manner in which you expressed it.
But the Artful Dodger's observation that hindsight works in favour of the reputations of those winners which serve as PM is probably a valid, if party pooping, observation.
Was Blair a better politician/leader/PM than Hague? I am not sure we would have answered that question in the affirmative had Hague won the 2001 election.
2010 Votes...... 2010 Share..........Predicted Votes
LIB 16,806............ 43.72%................28.25%
CON 14,116............ 36.72%................29.35%
LAB 5,061...............13.17%............... 24.15%
UKIP 1,243................ 3.23%................14.60%
OTH 1,213.................3.16%..................3.65%
More importantly, what does Shadsy think?
It'll be a shame if renationalisation is launched as an election gimmick - it'll never get past the EU and McNulty is already making effective change happen,.
"That's a problem today, in the period where the franchisee doesn't know if they'll get renewed or not."
But the franchises have a reason to perform well towards the end of their franchise - they want to win it again. Performing poorly would make that less likely.
It was not made any easier by the unofficial moratorium on buying rolling stock on the run-up to privatisation - I think it was something like three years with no orders.
One thing that sped up rolling-stock replacement was safety issued, like the banning of older carriages that were less crash-proof.
"So over the last couple of days several people have decided that Ed Miliband’s big problem is that he’s on holiday. They claim that if he wasn’t on holiday, but instead popping up on our television screens and in our papers, parroting meaningless platitudes about “One Nation”, Labour would be soaring ahead. “Oooh, look dear, it’s Ed Miliband talking about One Nation again”. “Well, he may be spouting nonsense, but at least the lad isn’t idling away his summer in the south of France. He’s got my vote”.
Another thesis is that it’s not Ed Miliband’s fault at all, but his advisers' fault. Ed’s great, but he’s got a team of losers around him. Or, he hasn’t got a big enough team of losers around him. If only he had Peter Mandelson or Jim Messina or Leo McGarry working for him, his problems would be solved. It’s not that Ed hasn’t got anything that even remotely resembles a coherent economic policy, for example. It’s just that he hasn’t got anyone who can present his totally incoherent economic policy in the right way."
RT @WikiGuido: Apple banned an app called "I am rich" that did nothing but cost $1,000 telegraph.co.uk/technology/app… < EPIC
Also punctuality. on slam door train passengers would frequently open doors just as the train was pulling out to delay it to allow others to get on.
I've looked back at 8 elections and forward 1, and this angle seems pretty robust to me.
Where there is a difference in candidate quality, the result is foreseeably obvious. This isn't a party political point. It was obvious Blair would win 3 times; it was obvious Thatcher would win 3 times; it was obvious Kinnock would lose twice.
Re 1979, Callaghan had lost control, had run out of ideas and was and is associated with union anarchy - a 1960s figure. Thatcher was a thoroughly modern figure. It was obvious who would win and I recall the same being said, at the time, for those reasons.
Re 1970, choosing between Heath and Wilson was really no choice at all; both were detached, overeducated, underprincipled Oxford toffs. The fact that there were 4 close elections, with little to choose in poll share, says to me that these were two clots of almost identical demerit.
What would have been interesting would have been an election contested by, say, Kinnock versus Duncan-Smith. That would have been akin to the Heath-Wilson confrontations in which two abject mediocrities, both differently unfit for the post, fought it out.
JuliaM @AmbushPredator
LOL! > RT @norton_tim: Ten stars, Wikipedia whale editor. pic.twitter.com/blIuBaLzES
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BRESahcCYAAUoSo.jpg:large
,
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-07/zimbabwes-blacks-only-stock-exchange-takes-financial-innovation-and-racism-new-highs
Political pundit (@DPJHodges) misinterprets trend. Expert (@drjennings) points out he's wrong http://bit.ly/1escLYz . Pundit blocks expert