And taxes will rise again to pay for it of course, might help Labour in London and the Home Counties commuter belt a bit but will make little difference in helping defend its Northern, Welsh and Midlands Leave seats where few regularly use the trains anyway.
38% of voters made no train journeys in the last 12 months, 15% only 1-2, 10% only 3-4.
In all honesty, this is the policy that would have the biggest I guess day to day impact on me personally. I spend £400+ a month on train tickets, so this would have the most immediate impact.
In all honesty, this is the policy that would have the biggest I guess day to day impact on me personally. I spend £400+ a month on train tickets, so this would have the most immediate impact.
And where is this money going to come from? I expect your taxes will go up by more than the difference.
Another uncosted Labour policy is a dent to their already non existent credibility. Reeks of desperation to try and resurrect their ailing campaign in the operating theatre.
I took the 2011 census figures off Wiki, assumed both that the age structure of the population hasn't changed radically in the eight years since, and that a round 40% of the 15-19 age group are 18-19. That enabled me to subtract children from the total population to give the electorate, and to calculate the proportion of the total electorate aged 18-24. It's a crude methodology but should yield something reasonably close to the true value.
Your list of Labour leaning demographics is, of course, entirely reasonable. For your list of suggested constituencies, the YouGov MRP rates them as follows:
Canterbury - lean Labour Lincoln - lean Labour Portsmouth South - likely Labour Derby North - likely Conservative Battersea - likely Labour Reading East - lean Labour Enfield Southgate - lean Labour Gedling - lean Labour
So it seems that you and they are of like mind. The exception - Derby North - might be something to do with Chris Williamson (standing again as an independent, for those unaware,) though more likely the model simply determines that the demographics there are less favourable to Labour than in the other six examples: it estimates that he'll lose his deposit.
Thanks - very interesting. Yes, I can't see Chris Williamson troubling the scorers much, but maybe enough to split the vote, and Derby N also has a substantial WWC population which is top of the Tory target list, of course.
In all honesty, this is the policy that would have the biggest I guess day to day impact on me personally. I spend £400+ a month on train tickets, so this would have the most immediate impact.
And where is this money going to come from? I expect your taxes will go up by more than the difference.
In all honesty, this is the policy that would have the biggest I guess day to day impact on me personally. I spend £400+ a month on train tickets, so this would have the most immediate impact.
And where is this money going to come from? I expect your taxes will go up by more than the difference.
ion, which puts the student electorate at a little under 4% of all voters.
They're also the age cohort that is least likely to vote. Using YouGov turnout estimates for 2017, I'd therefore estimate the 18-24 age group as constituting about 9% of all those who turn out to vote, and 18-24 year olds in full-time education as only 3% of actual voters.
So yes, this group could be very important in seats with a disproportionate concentration of university students (assuming that they also vote in the constituency where they are educated rather than that in which their families reside,) but elsewhere in the country the value of the youth vote should be very limited.
I think that's right (though I'm surprised the cohort is that large). We ought to be able to do our own little MRP job in drawing up a picture of Labour seats most likely to hold against a Tory tide: * Large student population * Significant LibDem/Green vote, but not enough to appear to be in contention * High BAME share * High level of highly-educated voters (overlaps with the student issue) * Voted Remain * Low retired population and of course the reverse for the opposite characteristcs. I don't know all the places in http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative but the ones that catch my eye are Canterbury, Lincoln, Portsmouth S, Derby N, Battersea, Reading East, Enfield Southgate, Gedling.
Hmm, not so sure about that. I shouldn't need to remind you that the key question to consider isn't how young people will vote, but how they will vote compared with the corresponding cohort last time. The answer is probably that they will be voting less for Labour and more for the LibDems, but even if that isn't the case, it's far from a given that they will be swinging towards Labour compared with 2017.
In all honesty, this is the policy that would have the biggest I guess day to day impact on me personally. I spend £400+ a month on train tickets, so this would have the most immediate impact.
And where is this money going to come from? I expect your taxes will go up by more than the difference.
You reckon my taxes will go up by £400 a month?
Your mortgage will when the pound tanks and interest rates need a big defensive hike.
In all honesty, this is the policy that would have the biggest I guess day to day impact on me personally. I spend £400+ a month on train tickets, so this would have the most immediate impact.
And where is this money going to come from? I expect your taxes will go up by more than the difference.
You reckon my taxes will go up by £400 a month?
Have you seen what Labour have promised?
I have indeed, not much evidence my taxes will go up by £400 a month though. However, I am prepared to pay more taxes, I've never had an issue with that myself. I can afford to do so.
not Boxing Day... (a)the polling day shall be— (i)the 14th day after the day which would otherwise have been the polling day, or (ii)if the 14th day is not a working day, the next working day after the 14th day;
Have they at no point read Le Grand. We've known for decades that if you want to help working class people you cut bus fares not train fares.
I agree with the principle of a "part time season ticket" for part time workers, or those who work from home frequently, though. Would be a good incentive to cut presenteeism - say 100 return tickets in a year for half the price of a full season ticket.
I mean, I’d love to pay £1000 less for my rail ticket but if I did, then how would the infrastructure get paid for? Oh wait, yes, tax rises “only at the top”. I’m not convinced anyone’s falling for this. Also, much though I’d love to be in the majority, isn’t commuting any distance by train a minority sport in this country?
In reality two things would be likely to happen. Less capital expenditure on the railways, and the poor would pay more tax to subsidise your travel.
Another uncosted Labour policy is a dent to their already non existent credibility. Reeks of desperation to try and resurrect their ailing campaign in the operating theatre.
I really am starting to wonder whether Labour will announce a "one off national dividend" of some kind before this is all over. I was joking a few days ago, but it's becoming more of a realistic scenario as they clearly throw as much taxpayer money at voters (is that ironic, I'm not sure) as they can to win votes.
In all honesty, this is the policy that would have the biggest I guess day to day impact on me personally. I spend £400+ a month on train tickets, so this would have the most immediate impact.
And where is this money going to come from? I expect your taxes will go up by more than the difference.
You reckon my taxes will go up by £400 a month?
Your mortgage will when the pound tanks and interest rates need a big defensive hike.
I don't actually have a mortgage yet, that's the next thing I need to do
Another uncosted Labour policy is a dent to their already non existent credibility. Reeks of desperation to try and resurrect their ailing campaign in the operating theatre.
I really am starting to wonder whether Labour will announce a "one off national dividend" of some kind before this is all over. I was joking a few days ago, but it's becoming more of a realistic scenario as they clearly throw as much taxpayer money at voters (is that ironic, I'm not sure) as they can to win votes.
To be honest with all these bungs, they might have well just kept it simple and gone UBI of £1000 a month.
I really am starting to wonder whether Labour will announce a "one off national dividend" of some kind before this is all over. I was joking a few days ago, but it's becoming more of a realistic scenario as they clearly throw as much taxpayer money at voters (is that ironic, I'm not sure) as they can to win votes.
You'd never catch Boris Johnson throwing money at voters, would you?
Have they at no point read Le Grand. We've known for decades that if you want to help working class people you cut bus fares not train fares.
I agree with the principle of a "part time season ticket" for part time workers, or those who work from home frequently, though. Would be a good incentive to cut presenteeism - say 100 return tickets in a year for half the price of a full season ticket.
That I would go for. Effectively an electronic, flexible, carnet? I guess the rail companies don’t like it because many of us have more home working options now, and if it halved my commuting cost I could WFH twice a week.
And another regressive policy. How about improving the lives of the least well off in society, rather than giving the middle-class free things?
Rail nationalisation itself would disproportionately benefit the better off, and especially those better off personages resident in the South-East. We're meant to be rebalancing the economy away from over-reliance on London and the Home Counties (though Labour's not too worried about that of course: it intends to create much greater equality by setting fire to the economy and making everybody dirt poor. But I digress...)
The point is that of course the middle classes are meant to be the main recipients of free everything. The poor vote Labour because they assume that benefits will be more generous and easier to get hold of, so they don't need bribing any further. This policy is aimed at winning Stevenage, not holding on to Sunderland.
I really am starting to wonder whether Labour will announce a "one off national dividend" of some kind before this is all over. I was joking a few days ago, but it's becoming more of a realistic scenario as they clearly throw as much taxpayer money at voters (is that ironic, I'm not sure) as they can to win votes.
To be honest with all these bungs, they might have well just kept it simple and gone UBI of £1000 a month.
Every party cares about the poor. Yes, even the Tories. They just all believe the best thing for the poor is that their party is running things, therefore if they have to toss billions upon billions at students, middle class commuters and shameless deceitful women of a certain age in order to achieve that, then so be it. They'll make it up to the poor.
I don't remember the manifesto giving a lot of detail on rail other than that nationalising them would make is simpler and more affordable. It sounds lovely and should be very popular, so once more its a question of whether people believe it, in the context of all the other major announcements, or at the least that the sight of Labour saying 'we want to help you' looks better than the Tories saying 'we won't help you'.
It probably makes sense if you believe that nationalising things inherently leads to greater efficiency. To anyone else it sounds like a load of nonsense.
Another uncosted Labour policy is a dent to their already non existent credibility. Reeks of desperation to try and resurrect their ailing campaign in the operating theatre.
Still, £1k a year not to be sniffed at, eh?
It’ll be taken off you via other ways.
Do you mean me personally, or just "the taxpayer"?
In all honesty, this is the policy that would have the biggest I guess day to day impact on me personally. I spend £400+ a month on train tickets, so this would have the most immediate impact.
And where is this money going to come from? I expect your taxes will go up by more than the difference.
You reckon my taxes will go up by £400 a month?
Have you seen what Labour have promised?
I have indeed, not much evidence my taxes will go up by £400 a month though. However, I am prepared to pay more taxes, I've never had an issue with that myself. I can afford to do so.
Worse still, people who don't earn a lot and can't afford it will see their taxes go up to save you £400 per month. Labour - the party of the few, not the many...
Labour's internal polling must be absolutely horrific.
In all honesty, this is the policy that would have the biggest I guess day to day impact on me personally. I spend £400+ a month on train tickets, so this would have the most immediate impact.
And where is this money going to come from? I expect your taxes will go up by more than the difference.
Another uncosted Labour policy is a dent to their already non existent credibility. Reeks of desperation to try and resurrect their ailing campaign in the operating theatre.
I really am starting to wonder whether Labour will announce a "one off national dividend" of some kind before this is all over. I was joking a few days ago, but it's becoming more of a realistic scenario as they clearly throw as much taxpayer money at voters (is that ironic, I'm not sure) as they can to win votes.
To be honest with all these bungs, they might have well just kept it simple and gone UBI of £1000 a month.
Why a thousand? Simply go for a million, then everybody would be rich and nobody would ever have to do any work. Such a paucity of ambition, Jeremy Corbyn and the rest of these neo-Thatcherite ideologues.
Curse of the new thread. Anyway, in relation to Corbyn blaming everything on the Iraq War:- The Bosnian civil war was a very significant event in the development of Islamist terror. It radicalised a whole generation - and if you look closely at the backgrounds and history of many subsequent Islamist leaders and influencers - you will find time spent in Bosnia during the war. This does not get aired much for three main reasons:- 1. It does not fit with the narrative that it’s all the fault of Bush, Blair and the Iraq War. 2. It does not fit with the narrative of the wicked US oppressing Muslims. It was of course the US which finally came to the rescue of Bosnian and Kosovan Muslims, not the Europeans - who had a pretty shameful record. And it was Jewish Nobel prize winner, Elie Wiesel, who publicly demanded action of Clinton to stop another European genocide. 3. Some of those politicians so quick to pin blame on Iraq were on the side of the Serbs who were murdering Bosnian Muslims in their thousands. Corbyn for one. One of the biggest lies about him is that he is on the side of Muslims. He isn’t - and hasn’t been - when their oppressors and killers have been anti-West, as Milosovic and Karadzic and Mladic and Assad are/were. And of course the ideology underpinning Islamist terrorism developed in the 1920’s, was given legs by some of the Nazi ideology which was spread by the Nazis in the Middle East during WW2 and then developed further from the 1950’s onwards. None of this is known to (or, if it is, is ignored by) the simple minded peddling their ignorant nonsense about the Middle East, as Corbyn and many of those around him do. Far more comforting to come up with a simple story which blames everything on the West and ignore a much more complex history and, you know, actual facts.
Another uncosted Labour policy is a dent to their already non existent credibility. Reeks of desperation to try and resurrect their ailing campaign in the operating theatre.
Still, £1k a year not to be sniffed at, eh?
If you commute by rail.
How many do?
And how many don't who will be resentful of those that do getting a massive bung?
I really am starting to wonder whether Labour will announce a "one off national dividend" of some kind before this is all over. I was joking a few days ago, but it's becoming more of a realistic scenario as they clearly throw as much taxpayer money at voters (is that ironic, I'm not sure) as they can to win votes.
A thousand each per year justified under 'modern monetary theory' / citizens income.
Another uncosted Labour policy is a dent to their already non existent credibility. Reeks of desperation to try and resurrect their ailing campaign in the operating theatre.
Still, £1k a year not to be sniffed at, eh?
We will all end up paying when the country is bankrupted.
I'd say Jezza has played a blinder with his promise to slash rail fares. Commuters hate the privatized rail companies with a passion, so really won't give a flying fig if their profits have to take a hit. Moreover it will save me an absolute packet! Go Jezza go!
Another uncosted Labour policy is a dent to their already non existent credibility. Reeks of desperation to try and resurrect their ailing campaign in the operating theatre.
Still, £1k a year not to be sniffed at, eh?
The British public will not be bribed with their own money. Especially when the numbers don't add up.
I really am starting to wonder whether Labour will announce a "one off national dividend" of some kind before this is all over. I was joking a few days ago, but it's becoming more of a realistic scenario as they clearly throw as much taxpayer money at voters (is that ironic, I'm not sure) as they can to win votes.
You'd never catch Boris Johnson throwing money at voters, would you?
Are you being purposefully cretinous or are just devoid of any kind of intelligence?
The big thing again the Tories haven't attacked Labour over nationalization...it isn't just the cost of bringing it back into public ownership, Labour promised wage rises for those wokers and the pensions are more generous (and of course the unions that pay for Labour are going to demand even better conditions).
And at the same time, they are going to cut the income....
Another uncosted Labour policy is a dent to their already non existent credibility. Reeks of desperation to try and resurrect their ailing campaign in the operating theatre.
Still, £1k a year not to be sniffed at, eh?
If you commute by rail.
How many do?
And how many don't who will be resentful of those that do getting a massive bung?
I don't remember the manifesto giving a lot of detail on rail other than that nationalising them would make is simpler and more affordable. It sounds lovely and should be very popular, so once more its a question of whether people believe it, in the context of all the other major announcements, or at the least that the sight of Labour saying 'we want to help you' looks better than the Tories saying 'we won't help you'.
It probably makes sense if you believe that nationalising things inherently leads to greater efficiency. To anyone else it sounds like a load of nonsense.
I'm not opposed in principle to nationalisation of many things, and no one likes rail fares, but even as admittedly a skeptic to such announcements from Labour, it just seems too good a proposal to be true. Something that big goes beyond something achievable through a simple policy choice, it becomes pie in the sky promises, or at least that's my impression.
What profit margins do Labour think the privatised rail companies have such that a 33% cut would not bankrupt them? I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that they aren't promising to make up the difference from the General taxpayer...
Oh well, if this gains Labour thousands of votes in Guildford, Winchester, Eastleigh, Woking, Esher and Walton, St Albans etc etc, I imagine the Tories will be beside themselves in desolation. delight.
I'd say Jezza has played a blinder with his promise to slash rail fares. Commuters hate the privatized rail companies with a passion, so really won't give a flying fig if their profits have to take a hit. Moreover it will save me an absolute packet! Go Jezza go!
Their profits will not be hit. The taxpayers will have to pay for it
This honestly looks like a policy to win over southern England's middle-class Remainers who might otherwise feel guilty about not voting Lib Dem.
Seems very plausible indeed. And it should grab the press narrative for a day - if the Tory strategy has been about getting through each day with as little focus on non Brexit matters as possible, then they could use Prince Andrew speaking up again tomorrow.
Labour's own polling must be dreadful and trying to buy voters is not going to work
And we already get 30% of train tickets with our two together railcard
Admittedly, if the WASPI bung, free social care, free prescriptions and free broadband haven't done the trick yet then a rail fares bribe seems unlikely to do the trick.
Voters who actually buy the free everything narrative don't need further convincing; those who don't will be even more likely to think they're being taken for fools, and either be cross with Labour or laugh at them.
Perhaps you're right and things are going worse for Labour than I suspected?
Not sure this policy is as described initially . The central booking office means fares would be reduced anyway as there would be no booking charge and it seems they’re connecting this with their nationalization plans so not sure it means an immediate big drop in prices .
I really am starting to wonder whether Labour will announce a "one off national dividend" of some kind before this is all over. I was joking a few days ago, but it's becoming more of a realistic scenario as they clearly throw as much taxpayer money at voters (is that ironic, I'm not sure) as they can to win votes.
Give everyone £1,000. It's no more daft than anything else they've come up with, and probably less harmful than many of their policies.
I really am starting to wonder whether Labour will announce a "one off national dividend" of some kind before this is all over. I was joking a few days ago, but it's becoming more of a realistic scenario as they clearly throw as much taxpayer money at voters (is that ironic, I'm not sure) as they can to win votes.
You'd never catch Boris Johnson throwing money at voters, would you?
Are you being purposefully cretinous or are just devoid of any kind of intelligence?
You'd never catch Boris Johnson throwing money at voters, would you?
Not sure this policy is as described initially . The central booking office means fares would be reduced anyway as there would be no booking charge and it seems they’re connecting this with their nationalization plans so not sure it means an immediate big drop in prices .
Not sure this policy is as described initially . The central booking office means fares would be reduced anyway as there would be no booking charge and it seems they’re connecting this with their nationalization plans so not sure it means an immediate big drop in prices .
There already is a "central booking system". It's called trainline.com. "Booking fees" are generally £1.
Another uncosted Labour policy is a dent to their already non existent credibility. Reeks of desperation to try and resurrect their ailing campaign in the operating theatre.
Still, £1k a year not to be sniffed at, eh?
There won't be any space on the subsidised trains, let alone seats. I'm not convinced that well paid city workers getting a bung will be overly popular with those who struggle on overcrowded rush hour routes where there is no adequate public transport.
Not sure this policy is as described initially . The central booking office means fares would be reduced anyway as there would be no booking charge and it seems they’re connecting this with their nationalization plans so not sure it means an immediate big drop in prices .
But as with student debt last election, the key is whether people think it might mean an immediate big drop, whether or not that is the proposal. Parties can be very clever giving an impression of a policy while it is actually something else. For an example where they do it badly, see the Tories and nurses. But the language here seems stronger than expected on timing. It's all very cynical and obfuscating politics at the moment (even more than usual), the sort Corbyn used to pretend he was not a part of because his shit doesn't stink.
I really am starting to wonder whether Labour will announce a "one off national dividend" of some kind before this is all over. I was joking a few days ago, but it's becoming more of a realistic scenario as they clearly throw as much taxpayer money at voters (is that ironic, I'm not sure) as they can to win votes.
You'd never catch Boris Johnson throwing money at voters, would you?
Are you being purposefully cretinous or are just devoid of any kind of intelligence?
You'd never catch Boris Johnson throwing money at voters, would you?
It’s such a strange policy because the voters they need to win in the places they need to win probably rarely use rail and it’ll be far down their priority list. All adds to the idea any vote increase is coming from the young in safe seats and University seats rather than reversing the Lab to Con swing.
Surely looking at petrol prices or bus routes would be far more beneficial?
I really am starting to wonder whether Labour will announce a "one off national dividend" of some kind before this is all over. I was joking a few days ago, but it's becoming more of a realistic scenario as they clearly throw as much taxpayer money at voters (is that ironic, I'm not sure) as they can to win votes.
Give everyone £1,000. It's no more daft than anything else they've come up with, and probably less harmful than many of their policies.
UBI actually isn't a terrible policy (although very expensive). BUT....it only works if a) you have a strong immigration policy / tight restrictions on when somebody become eligible and b) that it is set at a level where people are still strongly incentivized to work / not just piled ontop of all the other benefits currently available.
And there we have the problem....politicians get involved and (a) and (b) will obviously not be set properly.
I mean, I’d love to pay £1000 less for my rail ticket but if I did, then how would the infrastructure get paid for? Oh wait, yes, tax rises “only at the top”. I’m not convinced anyone’s falling for this. Also, much though I’d love to be in the majority, isn’t commuting any distance by train a minority sport in this country?
Free bus travel (outside London) would have been better IMO. £2.6 billion a year, great for car users (reduces congestion), great for the green lobby (pollution) and the poor (buses are expensive outside London).
Not sure this policy is as described initially . The central booking office means fares would be reduced anyway as there would be no booking charge and it seems they’re connecting this with their nationalization plans so not sure it means an immediate big drop in prices .
There already is a "central booking system". It's called trainline.com. "Booking fees" are generally £1.
A private company.....scum...put them out of business like the 200 ISPs...
So when can expect the announcement that income tax is being abolished for the 95%? They need to get on with it otherwise they'll have missed the boat with postal votes already being returned.
Income from passenger fares in 17/18 was £9.8bn, so say we just cut that by 1/2 that is £3.23bn to find from somewhere to support the railways. Unless I'm misreading the below the total Gov funding (Network rail plus other Gov funding) is £7bn, so they would be increasing the subsidy by nearly 50%...in one year. This is another WASPI bung.
Hmm, not so sure about that. I shouldn't need to remind you that the key question to consider isn't how young people will vote, but how they will vote compared with the corresponding cohort last time. The answer is probably that they will be voting less for Labour and more for the LibDems, but even if that isn't the case, it's far from a given that they will be swinging towards Labour compared with 2017.
Fair point, but I was responding to Black Rook pondering about the potential impact of a higher turnout in this population segment, which anecdotally appears to be happening. Also, that was just one of the characteristcs that I was suggesting for identifying seats where Labour is doing better than average.
I must say that in my canvassing I've met a lot of Labour students and a lot of apathetic students (as I said below, I don't think they are quite the goldmine for Labour that some believe) but I've not met any LibDem students and just two Tory students. There may be a LibDem student rush somewhere but I've not spotted it.
I really am starting to wonder whether Labour will announce a "one off national dividend" of some kind before this is all over. I was joking a few days ago, but it's becoming more of a realistic scenario as they clearly throw as much taxpayer money at voters (is that ironic, I'm not sure) as they can to win votes.
You'd never catch Boris Johnson throwing money at voters, would you?
Are you being purposefully cretinous or are just devoid of any kind of intelligence?
You'd never catch Boris Johnson throwing money at voters, would you?
Ah, a cretin. No surprise there then.
You'd never catch Boris Johnson throwing money at voters, would you?
Not sure this policy is as described initially . The central booking office means fares would be reduced anyway as there would be no booking charge and it seems they’re connecting this with their nationalization plans so not sure it means an immediate big drop in prices .
They cannot nationalise Avanti, the new west coast franchise starting on the 8th December running until 2031
I really am starting to wonder whether Labour will announce a "one off national dividend" of some kind before this is all over. I was joking a few days ago, but it's becoming more of a realistic scenario as they clearly throw as much taxpayer money at voters (is that ironic, I'm not sure) as they can to win votes.
Give everyone £1,000. It's no more daft than anything else they've come up with, and probably less harmful than many of their policies.
UBI actually isn't a terrible policy (although very expensive). BUT....it only works if a) you have a strong immigration policy / tight restrictions on when somebody become eligible and b) that it is set at a level where people are still strongly incentivized to work / not just piled ontop of all the other benefits currently available.
And there we have the problem....politicians get involved and (a) and (b) will obviously not be set properly.
If there is another financial crisis, then 'helicopter money' of £1K per person might be a good solution to aggregate demand.
I don't remember the manifesto giving a lot of detail on rail other than that nationalising them would make is simpler and more affordable. It sounds lovely and should be very popular, so once more its a question of whether people believe it, in the context of all the other major announcements, or at the least that the sight of Labour saying 'we want to help you' looks better than the Tories saying 'we won't help you'.
It probably makes sense if you believe that nationalising things inherently leads to greater efficiency. To anyone else it sounds like a load of nonsense.
I'm not opposed in principle to nationalisation of many things, and no one likes rail fares, but even as admittedly a skeptic to such announcements from Labour, it just seems too good a proposal to be true. Something that big goes beyond something achievable through a simple policy choice, it becomes pie in the sky promises, or at least that's my impression.
And fares are already regulated and set by the government....
Not sure this policy is as described initially . The central booking office means fares would be reduced anyway as there would be no booking charge and it seems they’re connecting this with their nationalization plans so not sure it means an immediate big drop in prices .
There already is a "central booking system". It's called trainline.com. "Booking fees" are generally £1.
A private company.....scum...put them out of business like the 200 ISPs...
Of course i love the idea that a central booking system shouldn't be expected to pay for itself. Obviously should be funded by the General taxpayer!
Free bus travel (outside London) would have been better IMO. £2.6 billion a year, great for car users (reduces congestion), great for the green lobby (pollution) and the poor (buses are expensive outside London).
Also (at least round here and not including the school busses) most busses seem to be two thirds empty most of the time.
Not sure this policy is as described initially . The central booking office means fares would be reduced anyway as there would be no booking charge and it seems they’re connecting this with their nationalization plans so not sure it means an immediate big drop in prices .
There already is a "central booking system". It's called trainline.com. "Booking fees" are generally £1.
And zero booking fee on plenty of other sites. Anyone using trainline is a turnip.
Comments
38% of voters made no train journeys in the last 12 months, 15% only 1-2, 10% only 3-4.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/transport/survey-results/daily/2018/12/14/217e5/3
Free rail travel for kids will see packed with non-paying passengers at weekends and school holidays.
And which might concern parents when their children get stranded.
Hahahaha.
(a)the polling day shall be—
(i)the 14th day after the day which would otherwise have been the polling day, or
(ii)if the 14th day is not a working day, the next working day after the 14th day;
I agree with the principle of a "part time season ticket" for part time workers, or those who work from home frequently, though. Would be a good incentive to cut presenteeism - say 100 return tickets in a year for half the price of a full season ticket.
And we already get 30% of train tickets with our two together railcard
The point is that of course the middle classes are meant to be the main recipients of free everything. The poor vote Labour because they assume that benefits will be more generous and easier to get hold of, so they don't need bribing any further. This policy is aimed at winning Stevenage, not holding on to Sunderland.
Labour's internal polling must be absolutely horrific.
How many do?
Anyway, in relation to Corbyn blaming everything on the Iraq War:-
The Bosnian civil war was a very significant event in the development of Islamist terror. It radicalised a whole generation - and if you look closely at the backgrounds and history of many subsequent Islamist leaders and influencers - you will find time spent in Bosnia during the war.
This does not get aired much for three main reasons:-
1. It does not fit with the narrative that it’s all the fault of Bush, Blair and the Iraq War.
2. It does not fit with the narrative of the wicked US oppressing Muslims. It was of course the US which finally came to the rescue of Bosnian and Kosovan Muslims, not the Europeans - who had a pretty shameful record. And it was Jewish Nobel prize winner, Elie Wiesel, who publicly demanded action of Clinton to stop another European genocide.
3. Some of those politicians so quick to pin blame on Iraq were on the side of the Serbs who were murdering Bosnian Muslims in their thousands. Corbyn for one. One of the biggest lies about him is that he is on the side of Muslims. He isn’t - and hasn’t been - when their oppressors and killers have been anti-West, as Milosovic and Karadzic and Mladic and Assad are/were.
And of course the ideology underpinning Islamist terrorism developed in the 1920’s, was given legs by some of the Nazi ideology which was spread by the Nazis in the Middle East during WW2 and then developed further from the 1950’s onwards.
None of this is known to (or, if it is, is ignored by) the simple minded peddling their ignorant nonsense about the Middle East, as Corbyn and many of those around him do.
Far more comforting to come up with a simple story which blames everything on the West and ignore a much more complex history and, you know, actual facts.
And at the same time, they are going to cut the income....
But like the nationalised broadband, it is such a ridiculous policy the tory lead will actually go up.
desolation. delight.Voters who actually buy the free everything narrative don't need further convincing; those who don't will be even more likely to think they're being taken for fools, and either be cross with Labour or laugh at them.
Perhaps you're right and things are going worse for Labour than I suspected?
Free money for everyone it seems.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/2011censusquickstatisticsforenglandandwales/2013-01-30
I'm not convinced that well paid city workers getting a bung will be overly popular with those who struggle on overcrowded rush hour routes where there is no adequate public transport.
It's all very cynical and obfuscating politics at the moment (even more than usual), the sort Corbyn used to pretend he was not a part of because his shit doesn't stink.
It could be presented as a semi-serious solution to address the challenges of automation and the post-capitalist economy.
Absolute bunkum of course but at least there are a couple of hundred years worth of debate around the subject which lends credibility.
Surely looking at petrol prices or bus routes would be far more beneficial?
And there we have the problem....politicians get involved and (a) and (b) will obviously not be set properly.
https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/40351/uk-rail-industry-financial-information-2017-18.pdf
I must say that in my canvassing I've met a lot of Labour students and a lot of apathetic students (as I said below, I don't think they are quite the goldmine for Labour that some believe) but I've not met any LibDem students and just two Tory students. There may be a LibDem student rush somewhere but I've not spotted it.
Night all.