Regarding rail freight, this is the one part of the system where there is genuine competition. Fed up with DB? Give your contract to Freightliner or GBRF.
However, the industry too often loses sight of the real competition - road transport. All rail freight companies and society at large will benefit from a switch from road to rail. That should be the priority of the industry and encouraged by government policy.
But it won't be. As we see below, it's all about the passengers.
Besides, as you say, it's one of the areas where privatisation is working (*), so why would they want to perpetuate that?
We should also remember how safe the railways currently are: and that's something we should congratulate the network for, whether private operators or nationalised infrastructure.
(*) Volumes are decreasing, but that's more a result of the death of coal, which was the vast majority of freight traffic until the last few years. AFAIK non-coal freight is healthy.
Safety is an interesting point.
Is too much money spent on squeezing an extra increment of safety?
If the same standards were applied on the roads we would all be banned from driving. How many SPADs do you get at traffic lights every day, for example?
The problem with that thinking is where do you stop spending to save money on safety? Do you do less frequent checks on wheels? Monthly, rather than weekly, track inspections?
The rules are there for a reason, and if you read RAIB bulletins, it's easy to see why they're there.
Mr. kle4, played the first and liked it but haven't picked up the second Dishonored[sp] game. I agree they're underrated. Watched an interesting video a few years ago suggesting sequels were selling badly even when they were actually good (Dishonored 2 cited as an example).
Obsidian also made Pillars of Eternity which, loading screens aside, I rather enjoyed.
Even Dishonored: Death of the Outsider was pretty good - they mix up the powers for the gameplay for each. I do need to play the expansions for Pillars of Eternity though, and then pick up the sequel.
You're right about games and the news. It's getting there, as the current generations grow up I think - things like GTA, as entertainment properties, make way more money than most movies do, and there's genres for anything. For heaven's sake, there's a dating sim game based around pigeons of human level intelligence (not anthropomorphized) called Hatoful Boyfriend. Something for everyone.
It’s amazing that some think no deal will get on the ballot .
You can’t put a question like that in a referendum , it’s too subjective .
What happens if that gets voted through are the public instructing the government not to do deals in aviation and security , and not to ever agree a trade deal . It’s a complete nonsense to have no deal on the ballot .
Unfortunately the screaming no dealers haven’t stopped to think what no deal actually means and will just say betrayal when no deal isn’t on the ballot .
If you’re going to have a third option it has to be in a specific point , so you could ask leave without a withdrawal agreement and future framework . This won’t tie the governments hands and will allow further negotiation after Brexit .
No deal, in some form, would have to be on the ballot as it is still the default.
On private schools, fees and numbers are a record highs. Removing the state subsidy much more likely to lead to some combination of parents choosing cheaper private options, paying a bit more, schools cutting costs, increasing class sizes etc.
I think the idea that all these schools would just give up and collapse is unrealistic.
Of course it is unrealistic.
That a progressive policy will lead to disaster is a neoliberal trope, and fake news.
(C.f: how the hunting ban will cause mass unemployment and 1000s of dogs to be put down; how the minimum wage will cause raging inflation and/or a recession; how raising the top rate of tax will cause a brain drain; etc.)
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
As I've said passim, I reckon Corbyn's Labour will:
*) do a deal with the unions - say no strikes for two years - in return for renationalisation (which the unions have wanted for years). That will get a quick win wrt the stupid strikes that are ongoing atm.
*) They will announce a fare freeze (they will claim paid for from what would have been the private profits). If companies are making 3% pa profit, then a 3% freeze could only be sustained for one year.
*) They will alter the user/general taxation payment balance, so users pay less and general taxation more.
*) Give more paths to passenger trains over freight trains, as freight trains just get in the way.
These are smoke and mirrors (and in the case of the fare freeze, disastrous, as we are seeing with Khan's wizard wheeze in London). But the short-term positives will be much more important for a Labour government than the long-term consequences.
Heck, it's what I'd do if I was advising them from a political angle and wasn't interested in the long-term interests of the railways and its users.
I don’t see how rail nationalisation will improve the lot of the South East commuter.
Here’s something that will.
Remove all second home allowances for all MPs within 60 miles of London.
Let the MPs suffer the same fate of standing on overcrowded trains as their commuting constituents.
You’ll find that will get something done quickly.
Au contraire: the overwhelming likelihood that renationalisation would lead to fare freezes, and possibly reductions, for commuters is one of the main reasons for opposing it. The risk is that any Government committed to renationalisation would take the opportunity to bribe commuters, replacing income from fares by income from general taxation. Commuters are disproportionately concentrated in London and the South East; therefore, renationalisation would end up being yet another net transfer of wealth from the rest of the country to its richest corner. I thought this was the sort of thing we were meant to be getting away from.
The other objection is that, in the long term, the service would be starved of money because scarce resources would be directed towards the NHS, the NHS, the NHS, the NHS, and pensions. So in that sense you're right: there would be short-term financial gain for commuters, but in the long-term they would suffer from having to travel in knackered, rusty, dirty old rolling stock and an increasing frequency of breakdown and maintenance-related delays.
If renationalisation happens then the only way it'll be made to work is by having the reconstituted British Rail run at arms' length from Government, as a not-for-profit service that reinvests its income in itself. Very much like TfL, except without a busybody politician mucking about with key operational decisions on things like fares. Then, if Government feels it has money to spare to subsidise rail travel as a public good, fine. If it doesn't, then the management needs to be free to hike up fares as much as they like, so they can continue to run a safe, clean and reliable service - regardless of the amount of caterwauling this provokes from passengers.
The politicians won't leave well alone, so renationalisation won't work.
Regarding rail freight, this is the one part of the system where there is genuine competition. Fed up with DB? Give your contract to Freightliner or GBRF.
However, the industry too often loses sight of the real competition - road transport. All rail freight companies and society at large will benefit from a switch from road to rail. That should be the priority of the industry and encouraged by government policy.
But it won't be. As we see below, it's all about the passengers.
Besides, as you say, it's one of the areas where privatisation is working (*), so why would they want to perpetuate that?
We should also remember how safe the railways currently are: and that's something we should congratulate the network for, whether private operators or nationalised infrastructure.
(*) Volumes are decreasing, but that's more a result of the death of coal, which was the vast majority of freight traffic until the last few years. AFAIK non-coal freight is healthy.
Safety is an interesting point.
Is too much money spent on squeezing an extra increment of safety?
If the same standards were applied on the roads we would all be banned from driving. How many SPADs do you get at traffic lights every day, for example?
The problem with that thinking is where do you stop spending to save money on safety? Do you do less frequent checks on wheels? Monthly, rather than weekly, track inspections?
The rules are there for a reason, and if you read RAIB bulletins, it's easy to see why they're there.
You might be able to spend smarter on safety, although I suspect it would end up more expensive (assuming management doesn't go mad and stop all its existing inspections). For instance, I was looking at a video of how American railways use "internet of things" cameras and recorders on the tracks to check train wheels as they pass. This is more efficient than inspection by eye (although should probably be supplemented by the latter) and can also, thanks to AI, learn to diagnose problems at earlier stages. This might have been it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wAOd5em9gY
The key takeaways are that Leavers can't abide the thought of staying in the EU and Remainers are appalled by the thought of No Deal. Very few people think May's Deal is good, but no-one hates it quite as much as another option. She's onto a winner.
Except where it matters - in Parliament.
Something has to turn up. Another option is to pause or cancel Article 50 while working out, with more or less seriousness an alternative Brexit to her deal.
There are only three immediate options: 1. Agree the deal as is. 2. Cancel (or maybe pause with EU agreement) A50 3. Crash out.
These options have implications for what happens next. 2 could be followed by a referendum. I don't think 3 is a stable state and 1, despite what May says, is blind Brexit.
I don't think it's clear the EU side will agree to pausing the process just to faff around with no particular defined end-state. Maybe Corbyn could get away with it, I doubt TMay could.
Whatever the European Court rules tomorrow, it's clear that a postponement of the deadline (as opposed to a revocation) will require unanimous agreement rather than a majority vote. So I agree it's far from clear that there will be a postponement.
It's particularly far from clear if the postponement is to enable a referendum in which "No Deal" is an option, given the consensus that - if it's left to either the government or the Commons - "No Deal" will not be an option (despite being the default option if nothing else happens).
Why should any of our European partners, let alone all of them unanimously, want to increase the chances of "No Deal"?
Au contraire: the overwhelming likelihood that renationalisation would lead to fare freezes, and possibly reductions, for commuters is one of the main reasons for opposing it. The risk is that any Government committed to renationalisation would take the opportunity to bribe commuters, replacing income from fares by income from general taxation. Commuters are disproportionately concentrated in London and the South East; therefore, renationalisation would end up being yet another net transfer of wealth from the rest of the country to its richest corner. I thought this was the sort of thing we were meant to be getting away from.
.
I completely agree with the point about rail nationalisation & subsequent fare freeze being an effective transfer of money from poorer parts of the country to grabbing London & the South East.
It’s amazing that some think no deal will get on the ballot .
You can’t put a question like that in a referendum , it’s too subjective .
What happens if that gets voted through are the public instructing the government not to do deals in aviation and security , and not to ever agree a trade deal . It’s a complete nonsense to have no deal on the ballot .
Unfortunately the screaming no dealers haven’t stopped to think what no deal actually means and will just say betrayal when no deal isn’t on the ballot .
If you’re going to have a third option it has to be in a specific point , so you could ask leave without a withdrawal agreement and future framework . This won’t tie the governments hands and will allow further negotiation after Brexit .
No deal, in some form, would have to be on the ballot as it is still the default.
Once they pass legislation for a binding Deal/Remain referendum it's no longer the default.
Mr. 56, plenty of private schools have far fees lower than those at the top end. Private education isn't just the likes of Eton and Harrow.
Exactly
I’m sure I have voted Tory as many times as you, Sir, at least since the 70s, but I am willing to admit that private education serves one purpose, and one purpose only, to preserve privilege... it’s laughable to see the threat of VAT describes as class warfare when the private education system is fundamental to preserving the class system.
On private schools, fees and numbers are a record highs. Removing the state subsidy much more likely to lead to some combination of parents choosing cheaper private options, paying a bit more, schools cutting costs, increasing class sizes etc.
I think the idea that all these schools would just give up and collapse is unrealistic.
Exactly, they represent the permafrost between the working/lower middle class and the privileged... they will not be allowed to melt away
My fares have gone up every year of his tenure. It's not a fare freeze"
I think the line is that he has frozen TfL only fares - single and pay as you go fares and the related weekly and daily caps. Those fares are generally used by casual users, the young and poor who cannot afford monthly or annual tickets in one go.
Of course most commuters buy travelcards as you get 12 months travel for the price of 10 monthly tickets on an annual travelcard. The argument is that as these allow travel on non TfL national rail services the Mayor would have to compensate national rail operators for the cost of the freeze. He does of course set the travelcard fares and TfL negotiate with the operators on cost sharing. So he hasn't frozen travelcard fares which have still gone up by RPI - which he sets but they aren't TfL only fares. Got it?
A zone 1-6 travelcard was £2,364 in 2016 - the last fares Boris set - it will now cost £2,568 in 2019 i.e. £204 more compared to Boris.
So the Mayor will keep his manifesto pledge that no Londoners will pay a penny more for their travel in 2020 than they did in 2016 - as long as they buy single tickets and not travelcards! If you live in zone 6 you will be paying 20,400 pennies more though if you buy a travelcard.
On private schools, fees and numbers are a record highs. Removing the state subsidy much more likely to lead to some combination of parents choosing cheaper private options, paying a bit more, schools cutting costs, increasing class sizes etc.
I think the idea that all these schools would just give up and collapse is unrealistic.
Exactly, they represent the permafrost between the working/lower middle class and the privileged... they will not be allowed to melt away
Selection by house price is by far the fairer solution. Capital appreciation as well. Bargain.
The key takeaways are that Leavers can't abide the thought of staying in the EU and Remainers are appalled by the thought of No Deal. Very few people think May's Deal is good, but no-one hates it quite as much as another option. She's onto a winner.
These poll questions suggest the only clear referendum result would be on a May's deal versus no deal question, which would see May's Deal win handsomely. Which is presumably why she's keen to phrase the issue that way. A choice between May's Deal and Remain or between No Deal and Remain could go either way.
Leavers are pretty keen on No Deal. (They wouldn't like the reality, but reality has never been a consideration).
My fares have gone up every year of his tenure. It's not a fare freeze"
I think the line is that he has frozen TfL only fares - single and pay as you go fares and the related weekly and daily caps. Those fares are generally used by casual users, the young and poor who cannot afford monthly or annual tickets in one go.
Of course most commuters buy travelcards as you get 12 months travel for the price of 10 monthly tickets on an annual travelcard. The argument is that as these allow travel on non TfL national rail services the Mayor would have to compensate national rail operators for the cost of the freeze. He does of course set the travelcard fares and TfL negotiate with the operators on cost sharing. So he hasn't frozen travelcard fares which have still gone up by RPI - which he sets but they aren't TfL only fares. Got it?
A zone 1-6 travelcard was £2,364 in 2016 - the last fares Boris set - it will now cost £2,568 in 2019 i.e. £204 more compared to Boris.
So the Mayor will keep his manifesto pledge that no Londoners will pay a penny more for their travel in 2020 than they did in 2016 - as long as they buy single tickets and not travelcards! If you live in zone 6 you will be paying 20,400 pennies more though if you buy a travelcard.
I take issue with some of this. The vast majority of commuters I see use either Oyster or pay via phone or card. I don't see great numbers with season tickets. I believe the Oyster fares are again being frozen but I also use my Oyster to travel on SWR and no doubt their fares will go up in the New Year.
The 3.1% increase on the rail component of my fare doesn't mean the whole journey goes up 3.1% - I think the whole journey increase will be about 1.6%.
I think in a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, Deal is likely to win. I know several Remainers who are uncomfortable with overturning the first referendum and who will vote Deal.
It may well do, although I'd be a bit cautious mapping what people say before the (hypothetical) campaign on to what they do after the campaign. If you're subject to a few weeks of hearing people making arguments you disagree with for Leave, and arguments you agree with for Remain, you're likely to forget about the procedural issue of whether the referendum should have happened and vote for the side you want to win.
I think the same applies to Leave supporters who are currently luke-warm on "deal". Give them a few weeks of the whole Leave campaign being on-message and nobody important saying "this is worse than no brexit" and nearly all of them will vote for their side.
I think Remain actually has a higher chance if No Deal is on the ballot as well (whether with AV or with 2 rounds) because Leave voters will be hearing a lot of stuff from their own side about how terrible one or the other Leave option is. Not that Remain-supporting MPs will want to take this gamble.
How ridiculous it will look if DEAL wins. An option overwhelmingly rejected by parliament will have to be implemented by parliament. Ditto in the case of NODEAL. If NODEAL is on the ballot then the referendum will not be possible until infrastructure has been put in to cope with it. We wouldn't wanr to be caught unwares a second time, would we?
For the above an other reasons I doubt that a referendum will actually happen.
Deal and No Deal are the only Leave options short of complete SM and CU BINO available. Otherwise Remain which has already been rejected
Actually remain was not rejected. It was remain under Cameron’s deal which wasn’t and isn’t the same as remain under the present terms.
The previous terms no longer exist.
My point was that remain wasn’t an option last time around. Cameron’s deal is little different to mays deal just we were on the other side of the fence in a position where we would be ignored rather than outside being ignored...
The key takeaways are that Leavers can't abide the thought of staying in the EU and Remainers are appalled by the thought of No Deal. Very few people think May's Deal is good, but no-one hates it quite as much as another option. She's onto a winner.
Except where it matters - in Parliament.
Something has to turn up. Another option is to pause or cancel Article 50 while working out, with more or less seriousness an alternative Brexit to her deal.
There are only three immediate options: 1. Agree the deal as is. 2. Cancel (or maybe pause with EU agreement) A50 3. Crash out.
These options have implications for what happens next. 2 could be followed by a referendum. I don't think 3 is a stable state and 1, despite what May says, is blind Brexit.
I don't think it's clear the EU side will agree to pausing the process just to faff around with no particular defined end-state. Maybe Corbyn could get away with it, I doubt TMay could.
Whatever the European Court rules tomorrow, it's clear that a postponement of the deadline (as opposed to a revocation) will require unanimous agreement rather than a majority vote. So I agree it's far from clear that there will be a postponement.
It's particularly far from clear if the postponement is to enable a referendum in which "No Deal" is an option, given the consensus that - if it's left to either the government or the Commons - "No Deal" will not be an option (despite being the default option if nothing else happens).
Why should any of our European partners, let alone all of them unanimously, want to increase the chances of "No Deal"?
And any second referendum that has "Remain" on the ballot will be mired in litigation as to what that term means from the off. Even "Remain" won't be able to say what Remain means. It will be down to a non-binding "iteration" from the EU...
Plus the role of the Electoral Commission in any second referendum as set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 will have to be majorly curtailed/suspended too. That will grind through Parliament.
Betting Post: I would think it is probably likely now that the EU will offer us a a small extension to the A50 deadline, providing it does not extend beyond the EU elections at the end of May. This will probably be necessary and desirable whatever route we take to resolving this, be it referendum, a GE or further negotiations.
That being the case, I would suggest that the 8.2 available on Betfair for an April- June Brexit date is probably very good value.
No deal, in some form, would have to be on the ballot as it is still the default.
Lord, spare us from another referendum.
If our politicians - most of whom make themselves appear more cowardly and duplicitous with every passing day - can't find a majority for any form of agreement with the EU, then they should either just take us out regardless or cancel the whole process and stay in. If they had the courage of their convictions, which most so obviously do not, then the large majority would vote to stay in and be done with it.
Once the decision had been made and implemented, Parliament could then vote for its own dissolution and people could decide at an election whether to get rid of the current crop of politicians, or if they thought the potential replacements were even worse.
Whatever the outcome of the Brexit process, the one thing that is going to generate more polarisation and resentment than anything else is attempting to resolve it by means of another referendum. To call one is to abdicate responsibility for cleaning up the terrible mess that Parliament itself made in the first place by legislating for the first one - a deeply deceitful exercise which, of course, contained an option that the majority of members thought disastrous, and had no intention of honouring.
Not all MPs are to blame - some of them were only elected in 2017, others genuinely believed in Brexit, and some of those who didn't (notably the SNP) voted against holding the referendum - but most are. All of those who are guilty, and now seek to palm off the responsibility for the consequences of their dishonest scheme on an electorate that pays them all fat salaries to weigh, debate and make complex decisions like this, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
And once this whole wretched episode is over, let's have no more referendums. Ever.
It’s amazing that some think no deal will get on the ballot .
You can’t put a question like that in a referendum , it’s too subjective .
What happens if that gets voted through are the public instructing the government not to do deals in aviation and security , and not to ever agree a trade deal . It’s a complete nonsense to have no deal on the ballot .
Unfortunately the screaming no dealers haven’t stopped to think what no deal actually means and will just say betrayal when no deal isn’t on the ballot .
If you’re going to have a third option it has to be in a specific point , so you could ask leave without a withdrawal agreement and future framework . This won’t tie the governments hands and will allow further negotiation after Brexit .
No deal, in some form, would have to be on the ballot as it is still the default.
Completely agree.
Why would a Tory government offer a referendum which the majority of their members and voters and a large section of their MPs would abstain in as they hate May's deal and still support leaving the EU?
Logically May should argue - we have had a vote to leave, we are leaving, you wanted a vote on the deal people's vote campaigners well here is your vote on the deal - its leave with my deal as agreed with the EU or no deal. Its a referendum she would presumably be confident about the result of - although if voters vote to go over the precipice that is democracy.
I know remain supporters - who overwhelmingly back Labour, Lib Dem and SNP would hate it but I wasn't aware the Tories cared more about what their opponents supporters think and want than their own in the past. Did Thatcher care that 57 per cent of the country opposed or even hated what she did.
If no deal or another leave option bar May's deal isn't on a second referendum ballot you might as well wind up the Tory party now and have the inevitable split. Cos its finished!
No deal, in some form, would have to be on the ballot as it is still the default.
Lord, spare us from another referendum.
If our politicians - most of whom make themselves appear more cowardly and duplicitous with every passing day - can't find a majority for any form of agreement with the EU, then they should either just take us out regardless or cancel the whole process and stay in. If they had the courage of their convictions, which most so obviously do not, then the large majority would vote to stay in and be done with it.
Once the decision had been made and implemented, Parliament could then vote for its own dissolution and people could decide at an election whether to get rid of the current crop of politicians, or if they thought the potential replacements were even worse.
Whatever the outcome of the Brexit process, the one thing that is going to generate more polarisation and resentment than anything else is attempting to resolve it by means of another referendum. To call one is to abdicate responsibility for cleaning up the terrible mess that Parliament itself made in the first place by legislating for the first one - a deeply deceitful exercise which, of course, contained an option that the majority of members thought disastrous, and had no intention of honouring.
Not all MPs are to blame - some of them were only elected in 2017, others genuinely believed in Brexit, and some of those who didn't (notably the SNP) voted against holding the referendum - but most are. All of those who are guilty, and now seek to palm off the responsibility for the consequences of their dishonest scheme on an electorate that pays them all fat salaries to weigh, debate and make complex decisions like this, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
And once this whole wretched episode is over, let's have no more referendums. Ever.
The usual suspects proclaiming the end of life as we know it if we allow a Corbyn (though I suspect that means ANY Labour) Government to take office.
I think the first point is I see no route to a Labour Government outside a GE short of a formal schism within the Conservative Party and oddly enough it's probably the terror of Corbyn that will prevent that happening - again, oddly enough it's much easier for parties to schism in Opposition as they have no one to talk to and nothing to talk about than themselves.
So if we assume Corbyn enters 10 Downing Street after a GE the next question is what constraints in terms of the parliamentary arithmetic will exist. If he has an overall majority alone that will represent a mandate but as leader of an insecure coalition the room for manoeuvre would be considerably limited if every piece of legislation needs SNP support and at the least LD acquiescence.
Neither the Thatcher nor Blair Governments were hugely radical in their first terms but with landslide re-election the opportunity to take a radical course was presented. Thatcher took it with both hands from 1983-87 but Blair was prevented by the events of 9/11/01 which naturally altered the focus of the Government completely.
Corbyn, on the other hand, may be a man in a hurry (he's 70 next May) but it remains to be seen if McDonnell, who I suspect will run the Government on a day-to-day basis just as he did for Livingstone in the GLC days in the early 80s, will temper a lot of the enthusiasm. The Corbyn-McDonnell relationship will be as important as the Blair-Brown or Cameron-Osborne relationships in that McDonnell is a prospective future PM if/when Corbyn retires.
No deal, in some form, would have to be on the ballot as it is still the default.
Lord, spare us from another referendum.
If our politicians - most of whom make themselves appear more cowardly and duplicitous with every passing day - can't find a majority for any form of agreement with the EU, then they should either just take us out regardless or cancel the whole process and stay in. If they had the courage of their convictions, which most so obviously do not, then the large majority would vote to stay in and be done with it.
Once the decision had been made and implemented, Parliament could then vote for its own dissolution and people could decide at an election whether to get rid of the current crop of politicians, or if they thought the potential replacements were even worse.
Whatever the outcome of the Brexit process, the one thing that is going to generate more polarisation and resentment than anything else is attempting to resolve it by means of another referendum. To call one is to abdicate responsibility for cleaning up the terrible mess that Parliament itself made in the first place by legislating for the first one - a deeply deceitful exercise which, of course, contained an option that the majority of members thought disastrous, and had no intention of honouring.
Not all MPs are to blame - some of them were only elected in 2017, others genuinely believed in Brexit, and some of those who didn't (notably the SNP) voted against holding the referendum - but most are. All of those who are guilty, and now seek to palm off the responsibility for the consequences of their dishonest scheme on an electorate that pays them all fat salaries to weigh, debate and make complex decisions like this, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
And once this whole wretched episode is over, let's have no more referendums. Ever.
Any MP abdicating ther responsiblity to sort out Brexit by voting for another Referendum should then resign their seat once they have done so.
No deal, in some form, would have to be on the ballot as it is still the default.
Lord, spare us from another referendum.
And once this whole wretched episode is over, let's have no more referendums. Ever.
Referendums at least do require a majority of votes to get approved. Our electoral system can give absolute power - as it did in 2005 - to a party which 64% of voters rejected.
Are you going to stop future Scottish indy referendums or a vote on a united Ireland - amongst others?
I don't think referendums are a necessarily bad thing at all - in Ireland they have often been cathartic and arguably in the context of say gay marriage inspiring and empowering. They also work very well in Switzerland - hardly a failed state.
Until we end a system whereby 36% of voters can impose their will on 64% under first past the post and millions of votes like mine are wasted every 5 years as they live in safe seats I think they play a role - even if the elites hate them as it gives the 'plebs' a real chance to make a statement (which I think seems to be the real objection from some!).
Nothing wrong with giving the voters (and more than 50% not more than 40%) a chance to roar and rage against the system they feel isn't working for them once in a while - if we don't let voters change things via the ballot box then we risk what is happening in France and worse.
So I agree about the politicians being c**p - but the answer is not as you suggest to give them more power and the people less.
But if we do have them we should implement the results - and not tell people to vote again if they deliver the wrong outcome. Or we could adopt the things are great in Hampstead and Highgate, Notting Hill, Richmond and Barnes line - so what are you lowlife up north and you poor people whining about?
If our politicians - most of whom make themselves appear more cowardly and duplicitous with every passing day - can't find a majority for any form of agreement with the EU, then they should either just take us out regardless or cancel the whole process and stay in. If they had the courage of their convictions, which most so obviously do not, then the large majority would vote to stay in and be done with it.
Once the decision had been made and implemented, Parliament could then vote for its own dissolution and people could decide at an election whether to get rid of the current crop of politicians, or if they thought the potential replacements were even worse.
And once this whole wretched episode is over, let's have no more referendums. Ever.
Apologies for snipping part of your erudition but only for purposes of space. I don't disagree with much of this and I've never supported nor wanted a second vote.
MY view on the EU has crystallised down to this - we have two options, either all in or all out. Our rebate-obsessed half-hearted mean-spirited opt-out-riddled farce of a membership has been deeply unsatisfactory both for us and for the EU.
I realise there's little or no public support for joining the Euro, Schengen and the rest of it but that would represent a coherent position as will leaving completely without being tied by residual strings (May's Deal) to the EU.
We will, like Russia, be a significant power on the periphery of the EU though of a very different nature and obviously not militarily threatening but a successful UK outside the EU will represent a challenge for the EU and may look attractive to some of the other peripheral nations.
One victim of Brexit seems to be Meghan Markle. Now that the Daily Mail has stopped hating on the EU, they have had to find something else to get their frothers to salivate about.
That was inevitable, they only build them up to knock them down. Sells papers.
The fact that in the last year Harry and Meghan have lost a number of staff, some who only joined recently, does suggest that they may not be the most brilliant of employers. And having good staff around them - to advise and help them - is, I would have thought, key to having a happy life in such a goldfish bowl. Goodwill - and I think there is probably a fair amount of it for Harry - can easily be lost if they allow it to go to their heads and forget that it is a privilege to have people work for you.
Look at the picture the BBC have picked of May in relation to their story confirming Tuesday's vote will go ahead.
Walking alone in the pouring rain all in black and looking miserable - on her way to church this morning in her constituency. She looks like she is at a funeral. It just looks so sad!
Look at the picture the BBC have picked of May in relation to their story confirming Tuesday's vote will go ahead.
Walking alone in the pouring rain all in black and looking miserable - on her way to church this morning in her constituency. She looks like she is at a funeral. It just looks so sad!
So parliament might give us three options in a referendum where all three options have been rejected by Parliament.
Perhaps us voters should first of all ask parliament to tell us what they are in favour of.
They can't agree on anything - which is the supposed argument for the people's vote. Of course they need to agree how the people's vote will work, the options on the ballot paper and the voting system.
Maybe if Parliament cannot choose we should have a people's vote on how the people's vote should operate?!
Look at the picture the BBC have picked of May in relation to their story confirming Tuesday's vote will go ahead.
Walking alone in the pouring rain all in black and looking miserable - on her way to church this morning in her constituency. She looks like she is at a funeral. It just looks so sad!
On topic, thank you to @NickPalmer for the header.
I think he underestimates the extent to which Brexit will consume pretty much all the energy of a Corbyn government, whether they want it to or not. That fact alone may limit what else a Labour government can do.
So parliament might give us three options in a referendum where all three options have been rejected by Parliament.
Perhaps us voters should first of all ask parliament to tell us what they are in favour of.
They can't agree on anything - which is the supposed argument for the people's vote. Of course they need to agree how the people's vote will work, the options on the ballot paper and the voting system.
Maybe if Parliament cannot choose we should have a people's vote on how the people's vote should operate?!
Given there would be more than two options for the "people's vote on how the people's vote should operate", will they be decided by AV?
Why don't we ask the Queen to draw a winner (No Deal, Deal or Remain) out of a hat, since neither parliament not the electorate seem to want to decide?
If our politicians - most of whom make themselves appear more cowardly and duplicitous with every passing day - can't find a majority for any form of agreement with the EU, then they should either just take us out regardless or cancel the whole process and stay in. If they had the courage of their convictions, which most so obviously do not, then the large majority would vote to stay in and be done with it.
Once the decision had been made and implemented, Parliament could then vote for its own dissolution and people could decide at an election whether to get rid of the current crop of politicians, or if they thought the potential replacements were even worse.
And once this whole wretched episode is over, let's have no more referendums. Ever.
Apologies for snipping part of your erudition but only for purposes of space. I don't disagree with much of this and I've never supported nor wanted a second vote.
MY view on the EU has crystallised down to this - we have two options, either all in or all out. Our rebate-obsessed half-hearted mean-spirited opt-out-riddled farce of a membership has been deeply unsatisfactory both for us and for the EU.
I realise there's little or no public support for joining the Euro, Schengen and the rest of it but that would represent a coherent position as will leaving completely without being tied by residual strings (May's Deal) to the EU.
This realisation is why I finally came down on the Leave side of the fence in 2016. The half-in, half-out status quo clearly wasn't sustainable and given that it was unlikely we'd ever consent to join the euro and Schengen it would be better to leave now, hard as it would be, rather than leave later when it would only be harder.
No deal, in some form, would have to be on the ballot as it is still the default.
Lord, spare us from another referendum.
And once this whole wretched episode is over, let's have no more referendums. Ever.
Referendums at least do require a majority of votes to get approved. Our electoral system can give absolute power - as it did in 2005 - to a party which 64% of voters rejected.
(*rest of post snipped to make room for reply, apologies*)
You make a lot of good points. And, in the one and only case of border polls in Ireland, which I believe are mentioned in the Good Friday Agreement, an exception would probably have to be made. Northern Ireland has to be afforded special treatment in some respects, because Ireland is a divided country.
I'll not say too much with regard to the Scottish situation because I don't live up there, and if the Scottish people and politicians really, really want to resolve their independence debate by means of another referendum then I wouldn't be part of that scrap. However, I see no reason why the Scottish situation could not be resolved without such a vote (I've not room to outline a mechanism, but in short the power to declare independence could be devolved to Holyrood, subject to some safeguards to protect both Scotland and the rest of the UK.)
I'm sympathetic to the arguments for PR. I tend to favour FPTP, however, because PR has had a tendency in many continental countries to encourage extremism on one hand and act to narrow, rather than expand, choice of Government on the other. Extreme alternatives gain a toehold in the legislature, then gain strength in opposition, and the risk is that one ends up with permanent coalitions of weakened centrist parties in Government, circling the wagons to keep out alternatives that they can't and won't work with. With a system like FPTP that has strong majoritarian tendencies, it has been historically easier to throw out governing parties and effect genuine change. But you can also make good arguments for the alternative.
I voted to Leave and would not be best pleased if Parliament decided to discard the referendum result and stay in the EU, but by the same token I'm not in favour of referendums and I'd much rather MPs at last showed some bottle and did what they thought was right than kept blundering about - still less palming the decision off on the people again. After all, the point of representative democracy is that the representatives are paid to spend their working days gathering information, debating and making informed decisions about how to run the country. Then, if we decide they are doing a bad job and we wish to effect a change of direction, we get rid of them.
I'd rather we had a Remain vote in Parliament, followed by a General Election, than a long drawn-out and very divisive referendum campaign. A second referendum would waste even more precious time, and at the end of it we'd either get Remain anyway; or a Deal that nobody wants; or a Clean Brexit result that Parliament would be dead set against, that it would have no time at all left to prepare for, that absolutely no-one would trust it to implement, and which it might still try to wriggle out of. If Parliament is going to rob the Leavers of victory then it should do so on its own authority and then submit itself for immediate judgement by the people, rather than trying to hide its duplicity behind the cloak of an unwanted and deeply damaging vote, held purely to spare MPs' blushes.
Comments
The rules are there for a reason, and if you read RAIB bulletins, it's easy to see why they're there.
You're right about games and the news. It's getting there, as the current generations grow up I think - things like GTA, as entertainment properties, make way more money than most movies do, and there's genres for anything. For heaven's sake, there's a dating sim game based around pigeons of human level intelligence (not anthropomorphized) called Hatoful Boyfriend. Something for everyone.
That a progressive policy will lead to disaster is a neoliberal trope, and fake news.
(C.f: how the hunting ban will cause mass unemployment and 1000s of dogs to be put down; how the minimum wage will cause raging inflation and/or a recession; how raising the top rate of tax will cause a brain drain; etc.)
The other objection is that, in the long term, the service would be starved of money because scarce resources would be directed towards the NHS, the NHS, the NHS, the NHS, and pensions. So in that sense you're right: there would be short-term financial gain for commuters, but in the long-term they would suffer from having to travel in knackered, rusty, dirty old rolling stock and an increasing frequency of breakdown and maintenance-related delays.
If renationalisation happens then the only way it'll be made to work is by having the reconstituted British Rail run at arms' length from Government, as a not-for-profit service that reinvests its income in itself. Very much like TfL, except without a busybody politician mucking about with key operational decisions on things like fares. Then, if Government feels it has money to spare to subsidise rail travel as a public good, fine. If it doesn't, then the management needs to be free to hike up fares as much as they like, so they can continue to run a safe, clean and reliable service - regardless of the amount of caterwauling this provokes from passengers.
The politicians won't leave well alone, so renationalisation won't work.
This might have been it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wAOd5em9gY
It's particularly far from clear if the postponement is to enable a referendum in which "No Deal" is an option, given the consensus that - if it's left to either the government or the Commons - "No Deal" will not be an option (despite being the default option if nothing else happens).
Why should any of our European partners, let alone all of them unanimously, want to increase the chances of "No Deal"?
Exactly, they represent the permafrost between the working/lower middle class and the privileged... they will not be allowed to melt away
He is, but as ever it's complex:
https://londonist.com/london/transport/sadiq-announces-2019-fare-freeze-but-is-it-really-a-fare-freeze
My fares have gone up every year of his tenure. It's not a fare freeze"
I think the line is that he has frozen TfL only fares - single and pay as you go fares and the related weekly and daily caps. Those fares are generally used by casual users, the young and poor who cannot afford monthly or annual tickets in one go.
Of course most commuters buy travelcards as you get 12 months travel for the price of 10 monthly tickets on an annual travelcard. The argument is that as these allow travel on non TfL national rail services the Mayor would have to compensate national rail operators for the cost of the freeze. He does of course set the travelcard fares and TfL negotiate with the operators on cost sharing. So he hasn't frozen travelcard fares which have still gone up by RPI - which he sets but they aren't TfL only fares. Got it?
A zone 1-6 travelcard was £2,364 in 2016 - the last fares Boris set - it will now cost £2,568 in 2019 i.e. £204 more compared to Boris.
So the Mayor will keep his manifesto pledge that no Londoners will pay a penny more for their travel in 2020 than they did in 2016 - as long as they buy single tickets and not travelcards! If you live in zone 6 you will be paying 20,400 pennies more though if you buy a travelcard.
https://twitter.com/BlewettSam/status/1071749064671354880
A referendum isn’t going to fix anything is it
The 3.1% increase on the rail component of my fare doesn't mean the whole journey goes up 3.1% - I think the whole journey increase will be about 1.6%.
Plus the role of the Electoral Commission in any second referendum as set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 will have to be majorly curtailed/suspended too. That will grind through Parliament.
That being the case, I would suggest that the 8.2 available on Betfair for an April- June Brexit date is probably very good value.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.130856098
If our politicians - most of whom make themselves appear more cowardly and duplicitous with every passing day - can't find a majority for any form of agreement with the EU, then they should either just take us out regardless or cancel the whole process and stay in. If they had the courage of their convictions, which most so obviously do not, then the large majority would vote to stay in and be done with it.
Once the decision had been made and implemented, Parliament could then vote for its own dissolution and people could decide at an election whether to get rid of the current crop of politicians, or if they thought the potential replacements were even worse.
Whatever the outcome of the Brexit process, the one thing that is going to generate more polarisation and resentment than anything else is attempting to resolve it by means of another referendum. To call one is to abdicate responsibility for cleaning up the terrible mess that Parliament itself made in the first place by legislating for the first one - a deeply deceitful exercise which, of course, contained an option that the majority of members thought disastrous, and had no intention of honouring.
Not all MPs are to blame - some of them were only elected in 2017, others genuinely believed in Brexit, and some of those who didn't (notably the SNP) voted against holding the referendum - but most are. All of those who are guilty, and now seek to palm off the responsibility for the consequences of their dishonest scheme on an electorate that pays them all fat salaries to weigh, debate and make complex decisions like this, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
And once this whole wretched episode is over, let's have no more referendums. Ever.
Why would a Tory government offer a referendum which the majority of their members and voters and a large section of their MPs would abstain in as they hate May's deal and still support leaving the EU?
Logically May should argue - we have had a vote to leave, we are leaving, you wanted a vote on the deal people's vote campaigners well here is your vote on the deal - its leave with my deal as agreed with the EU or no deal. Its a referendum she would presumably be confident about the result of - although if voters vote to go over the precipice that is democracy.
I know remain supporters - who overwhelmingly back Labour, Lib Dem and SNP would hate it but I wasn't aware the Tories cared more about what their opponents supporters think and want than their own in the past. Did Thatcher care that 57 per cent of the country opposed or even hated what she did.
If no deal or another leave option bar May's deal isn't on a second referendum ballot you might as well wind up the Tory party now and have the inevitable split. Cos its finished!
The usual suspects proclaiming the end of life as we know it if we allow a Corbyn (though I suspect that means ANY Labour) Government to take office.
I think the first point is I see no route to a Labour Government outside a GE short of a formal schism within the Conservative Party and oddly enough it's probably the terror of Corbyn that will prevent that happening - again, oddly enough it's much easier for parties to schism in Opposition as they have no one to talk to and nothing to talk about than themselves.
So if we assume Corbyn enters 10 Downing Street after a GE the next question is what constraints in terms of the parliamentary arithmetic will exist. If he has an overall majority alone that will represent a mandate but as leader of an insecure coalition the room for manoeuvre would be considerably limited if every piece of legislation needs SNP support and at the least LD acquiescence.
Neither the Thatcher nor Blair Governments were hugely radical in their first terms but with landslide re-election the opportunity to take a radical course was presented. Thatcher took it with both hands from 1983-87 but Blair was prevented by the events of 9/11/01 which naturally altered the focus of the Government completely.
Corbyn, on the other hand, may be a man in a hurry (he's 70 next May) but it remains to be seen if McDonnell, who I suspect will run the Government on a day-to-day basis just as he did for Livingstone in the GLC days in the early 80s, will temper a lot of the enthusiasm. The Corbyn-McDonnell relationship will be as important as the Blair-Brown or Cameron-Osborne relationships in that McDonnell is a prospective future PM if/when Corbyn retires.
Are you going to stop future Scottish indy referendums or a vote on a united Ireland - amongst others?
I don't think referendums are a necessarily bad thing at all - in Ireland they have often been cathartic and arguably in the context of say gay marriage inspiring and empowering. They also work very well in Switzerland - hardly a failed state.
Until we end a system whereby 36% of voters can impose their will on 64% under first past the post and millions of votes like mine are wasted every 5 years as they live in safe seats I think they play a role - even if the elites hate them as it gives the 'plebs' a real chance to make a statement (which I think seems to be the real objection from some!).
Nothing wrong with giving the voters (and more than 50% not more than 40%) a chance to roar and rage against the system they feel isn't working for them once in a while - if we don't let voters change things via the ballot box then we risk what is happening in France and worse.
So I agree about the politicians being c**p - but the answer is not as you suggest to give them more power and the people less.
But if we do have them we should implement the results - and not tell people to vote again if they deliver the wrong outcome. Or we could adopt the things are great in Hampstead and Highgate, Notting Hill, Richmond and Barnes line - so what are you lowlife up north and you poor people whining about?
MY view on the EU has crystallised down to this - we have two options, either all in or all out. Our rebate-obsessed half-hearted mean-spirited opt-out-riddled farce of a membership has been deeply unsatisfactory both for us and for the EU.
I realise there's little or no public support for joining the Euro, Schengen and the rest of it but that would represent a coherent position as will leaving completely without being tied by residual strings (May's Deal) to the EU.
We will, like Russia, be a significant power on the periphery of the EU though of a very different nature and obviously not militarily threatening but a successful UK outside the EU will represent a challenge for the EU and may look attractive to some of the other peripheral nations.
Walking alone in the pouring rain all in black and looking miserable - on her way to church this morning in her constituency. She looks like she is at a funeral. It just looks so sad!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46497531
Perhaps us voters should first of all ask parliament to tell us what they are in favour of.
Maybe if Parliament cannot choose we should have a people's vote on how the people's vote should operate?!
I think he underestimates the extent to which Brexit will consume pretty much all the energy of a Corbyn government, whether they want it to or not. That fact alone may limit what else a Labour government can do.
NEW THREAD
I'll not say too much with regard to the Scottish situation because I don't live up there, and if the Scottish people and politicians really, really want to resolve their independence debate by means of another referendum then I wouldn't be part of that scrap. However, I see no reason why the Scottish situation could not be resolved without such a vote (I've not room to outline a mechanism, but in short the power to declare independence could be devolved to Holyrood, subject to some safeguards to protect both Scotland and the rest of the UK.)
I'm sympathetic to the arguments for PR. I tend to favour FPTP, however, because PR has had a tendency in many continental countries to encourage extremism on one hand and act to narrow, rather than expand, choice of Government on the other. Extreme alternatives gain a toehold in the legislature, then gain strength in opposition, and the risk is that one ends up with permanent coalitions of weakened centrist parties in Government, circling the wagons to keep out alternatives that they can't and won't work with. With a system like FPTP that has strong majoritarian tendencies, it has been historically easier to throw out governing parties and effect genuine change. But you can also make good arguments for the alternative.
I voted to Leave and would not be best pleased if Parliament decided to discard the referendum result and stay in the EU, but by the same token I'm not in favour of referendums and I'd much rather MPs at last showed some bottle and did what they thought was right than kept blundering about - still less palming the decision off on the people again. After all, the point of representative democracy is that the representatives are paid to spend their working days gathering information, debating and making informed decisions about how to run the country. Then, if we decide they are doing a bad job and we wish to effect a change of direction, we get rid of them.
(TBC)
I'd rather we had a Remain vote in Parliament, followed by a General Election, than a long drawn-out and very divisive referendum campaign. A second referendum would waste even more precious time, and at the end of it we'd either get Remain anyway; or a Deal that nobody wants; or a Clean Brexit result that Parliament would be dead set against, that it would have no time at all left to prepare for, that absolutely no-one would trust it to implement, and which it might still try to wriggle out of. If Parliament is going to rob the Leavers of victory then it should do so on its own authority and then submit itself for immediate judgement by the people, rather than trying to hide its duplicity behind the cloak of an unwanted and deeply damaging vote, held purely to spare MPs' blushes.