Overall I think this 2% lead is much of an outlier as the 12% lead was.
The 2% lead is in line with the trend , the 12% lead was freakish.
Not sure it is, Populus was showing a 7-point lead. Tonight's poll does look an outlier.
That said, for me the interesting divergence between Populus and YouGov relates to the combined Conservative-UKIP share. Populus has it at 41% but YouGov has 49% which strikes me as a huge difference.
Populus is the pollster with the methodology that least favours UKIP.
The national picture isn't 2pts any more than it was 11pts. I currently have it at 5 or 6 pts, up about a point from the lowest consistent average.
Moving swiftly on, the marginal polls are interesting: they show four local pictures where campaigning would be different if an election were called tomorrow: Folkestone becomes a UKIP/Con battle (as it stands); Bognor relatively safe Con; Crewe a Con/Lab marginally, probably Lab gain helped by UKIP; and Great Yarmouth a three-way marginal from which Lab may well profit.
I have family in the Bognor area and talking to them I can fully understand why UKIP are pulling in supporters there.
Go on then, why? Has there been some influx of Roma, or something?
Hypothetical situation
You have a settled population somewhere containing say 100 young males age 12-24 and 100 young females age 12-24 and then you add 100 extra young males age 18-24.
UKIP stands firmly anchored in the British political firmament.
Initially I read that as 'fundament'.
UKIP, 'pile'-ing up the votes for second places.
You're obviously disturbed by UKIP. Like a Bay City Rollers' fan in 1976 hearing her brother talking about the Sex Pistols.
Lol, say it wasn't so little sister! Unlike UKIP, the Pistols hit the ground running in Scotland. An unnholy admixture of Chas'n'Dave & Skrewdriver is probably more the Kipper mark.
This clumsy, unfunny, inapt and oddly desperate rejoinder tells me Moniker is right.
Yawn, please (for the umpteenth time) dribble out your clumsy, unfunny, inapt and oddly desperate Scottish political insights, and while you're at it, your preferred UKIP musical simile.
It's interesting nowadays how many right wingers want to appropriate the likes of the Pistols for their particular world view.
The Dallas Cowboys blew a 23 point halftime lead yesterday. All they need is a new owner.
Obamacare already has an owner - and his promise that "If you like your policy you can keep it" was named as "Lie of the Year" by Politifact, and on the "top ten lies of the year" list by the Washington Post. A Quinnnipiac poll last week found that 52% think Obama is not honest and trustworthy. A Harvard Institute poll found that 56% disapprove of Obamacare.
We are now up to between 5 and 6 million policy cancellations due to Obamacare, depending on whose report you read. These are policies, not people, so it's many more people.
They tell us the website is improving, although they only release how many people have 'selected' policies, (meaning in their shopping basket or bought), and not give a breakdown as to the demographics. Apparently about 350,000 people have done so.
The problems with the front end of the website are just the beginning, and will be resolved at some point. The back end, which handles payments and sends the 834 data (name, ssn, policy bought, dependents etc) hasn't been completed yet. There are many reports in the press of problems. People are being declared medicare eligible who aren't. 834 data is often innaccurate in terms of contact information - name, address etc when sent to the insurance company, making it difficult or impossible for insurance companies to contact their customers. So come January 1, it's possible a slew of people could go to their doctors only to find that their doctor is not in their plan, or they don't have coverage. Most press reports put the percentage of applications in error at 20-25%, but the Washington Post last week estimated 30%.
Obamacare charges young people more to offset the cost of covering the sicker elderly, while fining them $95 next year if the don't. Polls show young people are unlikely to enroll, which is important because if they don't the cost model doesn't work.
The policies themselves suck. According to the New York Times, quoting Caroline F Pearson, a VP of Avalere Health who has aalyzed hundreads of the plans, as saying that although the premiums may be lower, copays and deductibles are much higher for prescriptions and medical services. Before they reach the cap on out-of-pocket costs, it will cost $6350 for an individual, $12,700 for a family. If you earn over $28,725 as an individual, or $48,823 for a family of 3 you will not get a subsidy on the exchanges.
The number of doctors and hospitals (including Sloane Kettering in NY and Cedars Sinai in LA) who have not signed up for the Obamacare plans, or have been dropped by insurers, is growing at an alarming rate. It looks increasingly that Obamacare is both raising costs and reducing care.
HHS last week isued new rules, showing how desperate things are -
* require insurers to accept payment thru Dec 31st for coverage Jan 1 * urge insurers to alow more time for premium payment and still have coverage * encourage insurers to treat out-of-network as in-network. * encourage insurers to refill prescriptions in Jan from previous plan.
Try to imagine what will happen next year when the employer mandate kicks in. How bad will that be?
On page 34552 of the Federal Register, the June 17,2010 issue, the following:
The department's mid-range estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013
Forbes and the Kaiser Family Foundation announced that as a result of their research, they estimate that more than 93 million Americans will see their workplace health care plans disrupted.
Cancellation letters have to give 90 days warning - they go out Oct 1, just over a month before the midterm elections.
This disaster is going to get worse as time goes on.
I'm hoping Spurs appoint Zola as manager. For some reason he was at 14-1 on Betfair and 33-1 with Betfred so I've got a huge free bet on him. Or more likely a £9.50 profit. Hopefully they will appoint someone quickish tho - alot of cash tied up atm !
I’m puzzled why UKIP wants to advertise a set of polls which suggest they won’t win anything, and which also seems to support the Tory claim that a vote for UKIP will lead to a Miliband-led government.
On topic: So, even UKIP's biggest funder confirms Vote UKIP, Get Miliband.
Well, that's fair enough. If that's really what UKIP supporters want, so be it, as long as they don't blame the sane for the consequences when they realise the extent of the mistake, circa 2016.
Meanwhile, sensible people will be managing their affairs as best they can to mitigate the damage: hope (and work) for the best but plan for the worst is usually a good strategy, and certainly so in this case.
On topic: So, even UKIP's biggest funder confirms Vote UKIP, Get Miliband.
Well, that's fair enough. If that's really what UKIP supporters want, so be it, as long as they don't blame the sane for the consequences when they realise the extent of the mistake, circa 2016.
Meanwhile, sensible people will be managing their affairs as best they can to mitigate the damage: hope (and work) for the best but plan for the worst is usually a good strategy, and certainly so in this case.
Any good Tory should welcome competition , it's what keeps us honest. Cameron has to up his game if he wants to win the GE.
I’m puzzled why UKIP wants to advertise a set of polls which suggest they won’t win anything, and which also seems to support the Tory claim that a vote for UKIP will lead to a Miliband-led government.
The answer lies further down the page.
53% would rather vote UKIP than Conservative even if it lets in Miliband`s Labour government. 33% would rather vote Conservative than UKIP to keep Miliband out.
Any good Tory should welcome competition , it's what keeps us honest. Cameron has to up his game if he wants to win the GE.
Maybe, but expecting him to up his game when he's already the best PM apart from Maggie for 50 years is a big ask.
In any case what we are seeing has nothing to do with David Cameron. It's the same nihilism which led to a non-party led by a clown getting 25% of the vote in Italy in February.
"Maybe, but expecting him to up his game when he's already the best PM apart from Maggie for 50 years is a big ask"....I assume you have taken some very strong drugs tonight?
"Maybe, but expecting him to up his game when he's already the best PM apart from Maggie for 50 years is a big ask"....I assume you have taken some very strong drugs tonight?
It's a point I've made many times, and no-one has ever managed to argue otherwise.
The best attempt was a leftie North London lawyer who, going through the list, suggested Harold Wilson. I could see the point, given the record on social reform and the fact that he kept us out of Vietnam, but Wilson was also more responsible than any other PM for the disastrous slide to the bottom of the European economic league and the kow-towing to the unions which took so long and so much pain to correct. He was of course also responsible for the wrecking of UK education.
I recommend watching that Mirror interview with Hanningfield. It's like John Cleese in Fawlty Towers trying to lie his way out of trouble, hoping that more and more lies will make it better.
"July was a hot month", "I've had a nervous breakdown", "I've put my shoulder out", "lots of people do it..."
The last probably not a lie, but Oh Dear.
He handled it all really badly last time. "Unrepetent" came up quite a lot. Annoyed a lot of people who might otherwise have defended him and blamed the system, as I recall.
SMukesh, I read this as meaning a third of UKIP voters would support the Tories to stop Miliband which would transform the situation in most of these seats.
I can't see any polling evidence that Labour or Libdem voters would support a more right-wing party to defeat the Tories to offset this.
He handled it all really badly last time. "Unrepetent" came up quite a lot. Annoyed a lot of people who might otherwise have defended him and blamed the system, as I recall.
I think he's correct, though - as I understand it, the rules are that a Lord just needs to turn up once a day to collect the dosh.
SMukesh, I read this as meaning a third of UKIP voters would support the Tories to stop Miliband which would transform the situation in most of these seats.
I can't see any polling evidence that Labour or Libdem voters would support a more right-wing party to defeat the Tories to offset this.
The fact is the best polls take a fair whack of disbelieving how people will say they will vote when they've recently switched parties. Tactical voting even more likely to be misrepresented one way or another.
On topic: So, even UKIP's biggest funder confirms Vote UKIP, Get Miliband.
Well, that's fair enough. If that's really what UKIP supporters want, so be it, as long as they don't blame the sane for the consequences when they realise the extent of the mistake, circa 2016.
Its not going to work RN.
Trying to scare people with the Miliband side of the metropolitan incompetant coin wont work when you're idolising the Cameron side of the same metropolitan incompetant coin.
Meanwhile, sensible people will be managing their affairs as best they can to mitigate the damage: hope (and work) for the best but plan for the worst is usually a good strategy, and certainly so in this case.
Some of us have been doing that for years.
Back when you were supporting Osborne supporting Brown's economic policies.
He handled it all really badly last time. "Unrepetent" came up quite a lot. Annoyed a lot of people who might otherwise have defended him and blamed the system, as I recall.
I think he's correct, though - as I understand it, the rules are that a Lord just needs to turn up once a day to collect the dosh.
That's like tax avoidance rather than tax evasion.
Or we might think it's fine for private people to max out where they can, but peers, selected etc, are under a general duty to act honestly (or similar).
half of the Premier League’s 20 clubs have managers — permanent or otherwise — whose experience in their present job amounts to 16 or fewer league matches. In contrast, Arsène Wenger has guided Arsenal for more than 17 years.
all those years, yet he's still not learned to watch what's going on, and somehow always misses the crucial incidents
Any good Tory should welcome competition , it's what keeps us honest. Cameron has to up his game if he wants to win the GE.
Maybe, but expecting him to up his game when he's already the best PM apart from Maggie for 50 years is a big ask.
In any case what we are seeing has nothing to do with David Cameron. It's the same nihilism which led to a non-party led by a clown getting 25% of the vote in Italy in February.
does this nihilism literally come from nothing, or have perhaps politicians or political parties something to do with it?
SMukesh, I read this as meaning a third of UKIP voters would support the Tories to stop Miliband which would transform the situation in most of these seats.
I can't see any polling evidence that Labour or Libdem voters would support a more right-wing party to defeat the Tories to offset this.
Survation reckons that the total effect if UKIP switched back to 2010 votes en masse would be Tories somewhere between +0.6% and +2% net. Meh.
He handled it all really badly last time. "Unrepetent" came up quite a lot. Annoyed a lot of people who might otherwise have defended him and blamed the system, as I recall.
I think he's correct, though - as I understand it, the rules are that a Lord just needs to turn up once a day to collect the dosh.
I saw most of the interview - he clearly doesn't come out of it well but I felt a bit sorry for him. He could have simply walked off, but he keeps trying to explain himself and in his own mind I'm inclined to think he does feel he's trying to work his way back into active involvement. He's apparently not broken the rules this time, and there's an element of tormenting someone who's already battered which isn't pleasant to watch.
Fixing the system is difficult as long as they stick to lifelong appointments. If he was paid a salary instead of attendance allowance he wouldn't need to turn up at all. While we're waiting for more long-term reform, perhaps as an interim measure all appointments should be limited to 5 years, renewable if the Appointments Commission are satisfied he's been an active member. That would also help avoid the constant growth in numbers of peers after every election as each PM adjusts upwards to reflect the new balance.
Senior trade union leaders have said the Better Together campaign against Scottish independence risks being tarnished by significant donations from Tory donors and senior financiers.
The GMB union, one of the UK's largest, said union members and Labour activists would be alarmed that Tory donors, bankers and businesspeople linked to the intelligence services were on Better Together's latest list of backers.
Take it from me, Seant is a damn sight more interesting, funny and entertaining that you ever are on this site. Sean is the only poster I know that can turn his guns on another poster with a rantathon that can both insult and make the target laugh all at the same time. Its a gift, and he rarely if ever holds a grudge like so some posters on here do. And like a will of the wisp, his views and opinions dart around with his mood so he cannot be easily pinned down to a more rigid partisan position.
UKIP stands firmly anchored in the British political firmament.
Initially I read that as 'fundament'.
UKIP, 'pile'-ing up the votes for second places.
You're obviously disturbed by UKIP. Like a Bay City Rollers' fan in 1976 hearing her brother talking about the Sex Pistols.
Lol, say it wasn't so little sister! Unlike UKIP, the Pistols hit the ground running in Scotland. An unnholy admixture of Chas'n'Dave & Skrewdriver is probably more the Kipper mark.
This clumsy, unfunny, inapt and oddly desperate rejoinder tells me Moniker is right.
Yawn, please (for the umpteenth time) dribble out your clumsy, unfunny, inapt and oddly desperate Scottish political insights, and while you're at it, your preferred UKIP musical simile.
It's interesting nowadays how many right wingers want to appropriate the likes of the Pistols for their particular world view.
But Nick those figures assume that there was no UKIP candidate and voters were asked how they would vote. Well UKIP are likely to stand in all constituencies, so it’s not very likely.
However, if UKIP is present and there is a real likelihood of a Miliband-led government 33% of UKIP voters indicated they would vote Conservative. 53% mentioned that they would stick with UKIP regardless. This has the potential to add 3-4% to any conservative margin over Labour, nationally.
SMukesh, I read this as meaning a third of UKIP voters would support the Tories to stop Miliband which would transform the situation in most of these seats.
I can't see any polling evidence that Labour or Libdem voters would support a more right-wing party to defeat the Tories to offset this.
Survation reckons that the total effect if UKIP switched back to 2010 votes en masse would be Tories somewhere between +0.6% and +2% net. Meh.
He handled it all really badly last time. "Unrepetent" came up quite a lot. Annoyed a lot of people who might otherwise have defended him and blamed the system, as I recall.
I think he's correct, though - as I understand it, the rules are that a Lord just needs to turn up once a day to collect the dosh.
I saw most of the interview - he clearly doesn't come out of it well but I felt a bit sorry for him. He could have simply walked off, but he keeps trying to explain himself and in his own mind I'm inclined to think he does feel he's trying to work his way back into active involvement. He's apparently not broken the rules this time, and there's an element of tormenting someone who's already battered which isn't pleasant to watch.
Fixing the system is difficult as long as they stick to lifelong appointments. If he was paid a salary instead of attendance allowance he wouldn't need to turn up at all. While we're waiting for more long-term reform, perhaps as an interim measure all appointments should be limited to 5 years, renewable if the Appointments Commission are satisfied he's been an active member. That would also help avoid the constant growth in numbers of peers after every election as each PM adjusts upwards to reflect the new balance.
You're obviously a very forgiving person to feel sorry for Hanningfield.
"People born in the 1960s and 1970s will only be wealthier than the previous generation in retirement if they inherit money, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said.
The think tank found people in their 40s and 50s are less likely to own a home than those 10 years older.
Their incomes are also no higher and their private pensions are smaller.
It suggests an end to the steadily rising incomes and living standards since World War Two."
"People born in the 1960s and 1970s will only be wealthier than the previous generation in retirement if they inherit money, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said.
The think tank found people in their 40s and 50s are less likely to own a home than those 10 years older.
Their incomes are also no higher and their private pensions are smaller.
It suggests an end to the steadily rising incomes and living standards since World War Two."
I doubt if this will occur but if it does its mainly because of a lack of thrift in my view. I'm very comfortably off now in my late 50's because I was happy to save and defer instant gratification when I was younger. As you sow so shall you reap is I believe, the appropriate homily.
1. Ed talks about the Energy Price Freeze 2. PB Tories and Dan Hodges say it's a disaster and unravelling 3. Miliband gets a 3-month bump.
PB Tories then say it's a disaster because the poll bump is fading away. You don't think he can pull any more populist policies out, but then you didn't like the energy price freeze in the first place so it's not surprising.
Cameron can't make the sort of promises and policies Miliband can.Ed would just have to pull out rail nationalisation or something to get another small boost, then the Tories would be scrambling to defend the impoverished railway owners, promising economic disaster, then a few weeks later support Cameron's watered down version.
The government has to produce plans that have a chance of working. Ed can spout any old bullsh*t that won't work but sounds good. That's the difference.
The mix of polls last night has created dissonance in the Tory ranks. Some are celebrating. Others, such as Richard N, are seeking to protect their assets in Swiss bank accounts.
Re Ed and Rail Nationalisation. The correct term surely should be repatriation, as the majority of franchises are already nationalised. Most are part owned - nationalised - by the French, Dutch or German state railways, or in the case of the various Arriva franchises wholly owned.
It's hard to argue that public sector businesses can't compete when the public sectors of foreign countries successfully bid for and win rail contracts here. Indeed a few months before the election the Tories has insisted on binning the Directly Operated East Coast franchise to relet it. Bidders declared so far are Virgin/Stagecoach, First/Keolis (french government) and Eurostar (french government). Don't it be funny if we "privatise" this franchise by handing all it's subsidy over to the taxpayers of la belle France?
Labour's case for repatriation is simple - why let foreign governments run our railways and not our own? Our government bears all the risk, specifies and pays for all new rolling stock, sets the fares structure, the timetable, even specifies livery in some new cases. The operator has zero risk, even handing the franchise back as as just happened with Great Western when "cap and collar" subsidy runs out. Of course they still operate the trains, but now on a management consulting contract where we pay all the bills. The risk is nationised here, the operators are mainly nationalised abroad. And we call this privatisation?
Re Ed and Rail Nationalisation. The correct term surely should be repatriation, as the majority of franchises are already nationalised. Most are part owned - nationalised - by the French, Dutch or German state railways, or in the case of the various Arriva franchises wholly owned.
It's hard to argue that public sector businesses can't compete when the public sectors of foreign countries successfully bid for and win rail contracts here. Indeed a few months before the election the Tories has insisted on binning the Directly Operated East Coast franchise to relet it. Bidders declared so far are Virgin/Stagecoach, First/Keolis (french government) and Eurostar (french government). Don't it be funny if we "privatise" this franchise by handing all it's subsidy over to the taxpayers of la belle France?
Labour's case for repatriation is simple - why let foreign governments run our railways and not our own? Our government bears all the risk, specifies and pays for all new rolling stock, sets the fares structure, the timetable, even specifies livery in some new cases. The operator has zero risk, even handing the franchise back as as just happened with Great Western when "cap and collar" subsidy runs out. Of course they still operate the trains, but now on a management consulting contract where we pay all the bills. The risk is nationised here, the operators are mainly nationalised abroad. And we call this privatisation?
Well it's not privatised in any normal sense of the word, for the reasons you pay out. The railways receive more public subsidy now - up to four times on some measures - than they ever did under BR. And, as you say, many are in any event run by foreign govts. The entire setup is a bizarre journey through the Very Weird.
Re Ed and Rail Nationalisation. The correct term surely should be repatriation, as the majority of franchises are already nationalised. Most are part owned - nationalised - by the French, Dutch or German state railways, or in the case of the various Arriva franchises wholly owned.
It's hard to argue that public sector businesses can't compete when the public sectors of foreign countries successfully bid for and win rail contracts here. Indeed a few months before the election the Tories has insisted on binning the Directly Operated East Coast franchise to relet it. Bidders declared so far are Virgin/Stagecoach, First/Keolis (french government) and Eurostar (french government). Don't it be funny if we "privatise" this franchise by handing all it's subsidy over to the taxpayers of la belle France?
Labour's case for repatriation is simple - why let foreign governments run our railways and not our own? Our government bears all the risk, specifies and pays for all new rolling stock, sets the fares structure, the timetable, even specifies livery in some new cases. The operator has zero risk, even handing the franchise back as as just happened with Great Western when "cap and collar" subsidy runs out. Of course they still operate the trains, but now on a management consulting contract where we pay all the bills. The risk is nationised here, the operators are mainly nationalised abroad. And we call this privatisation?
I agree with much of this, but great care is needed:
1) There are signs that privatisation has been a success; freight traffic has increased, and passenger number doubled. Whilst it is the devil's job to work out cause and effect, the evidence in traffic growth coinciding with privatisation after 50 years of shrinkage is indicative.
2) I seriously doubt the BR setup could have dealt, or allowed, the above growth.
3) There are other systems - e.g. concessions - that might work better than both nationalisation and the current franchise setup.
4) Investment in nationalised industries is traditionally poor. Without wanting to be called a stalker, Nick Palmer's attitude to this was telling: steal investment to pay for tax credits, ffs.
Renationalising might be best. But it needs looking at properly and from a non-ideological point of view.
The mix of polls last night has created dissonance in the Tory ranks. Some are celebrating. Others, such as Richard N, are seeking to protect their assets in Swiss bank accounts.
Swiss bank accounts are no use Mr Job. Have you not heard that Osborne, that scourge of the rich, has signed disclosure agreements with them largely ending banking secrecy and forcing tax accountability?
I think both reactions to a single day's polls are slightly overdone but for the tories to be sitting only 1% short of their 2010 result at this point is indeed remarkable, particularly given the rise of UKIP.
Christ on a bike, it will be a subsection orgy on here tonight. Labour still on 38%.....that means I'm happy as at that percentage there can be no Tory government.
Sorry, but I'm struggling to believe you; Labour are polling 6% behind the government before being exposed to the inevitable scrutiny of a GE campaign, and you'rehappy? Do you imagine that scrutiny will be exceptionally kind on Miliband, because I sure don't...
Good morning: today is UK economics day. At 9:30 we have RPI, CPI and PPI numbers, as well as ONS house price data. At 11:00, we have the CBI survey data on orders and prices,
We also have CPI inflation data from both the US and the Eurozone today. Europe, perhaps unsurprisingly, is expected to see prices shrink 0.1%, while the US is expected to see a 0.1% increase. Also out today is the US current account balance.
Good morning, comrades and profiteering capitalists (your wealth shall be confiscated, pigdogs!).
F1: it's like politics, but with much less incompetence. Now we've got the bloody odd statement from Ron Dennis that Alonso is welcome at McLaren: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25400798
In the past Alonso has said he had no problem with anyone at McLaren except one individual who was no longer there (ie Dennis).
Whitmarsh apparently (according to the piece) recently took a contract for Alonso to peruse.
"The Ferrari driver has also made it clear he would not return if Dennis had any involvement in the F1 programme."
It may be that Dennis is trying to undermine Whitmarsh (by the statement suggesting Dennis has any say over who the drivers are) and reduce the chances of Alonso returning (not sure why. Perhaps because if Dennis returned to control of the team then Alonso might leave).
"Alonso made it clear to Dennis he felt McLaren risked throwing away the title if they did not prioritise one driver over the other and continued to press his point. "
He turned out to be spot on. He and Hamilton drew on points and Raikkonen finished ahead by 1, and won the title.
It'll be interesting to see if Whitmarsh can deliver more in 2014. So far, his reign as team principal has not been great for the team.
Re Ed and Rail Nationalisation. The correct term surely should be repatriation, as the majority of franchises are already nationalised. Most are part owned - nationalised - by the French, Dutch or German state railways, or in the case of the various Arriva franchises wholly owned.
It's hard to argue that public sector businesses can't compete when the public sectors of foreign countries successfully bid for and win rail contracts here. Indeed a few months before the election the Tories has insisted on binning the Directly Operated East Coast franchise to relet it. Bidders declared so far are Virgin/Stagecoach, First/Keolis (french government) and Eurostar (french government). Don't it be funny if we "privatise" this franchise by handing all it's subsidy over to the taxpayers of la belle France?
Labour's case for repatriation is simple - why let foreign governments run our railways and not our own? Our government bears all the risk, specifies and pays for all new rolling stock, sets the fares structure, the timetable, even specifies livery in some new cases. The operator has zero risk, even handing the franchise back as as just happened with Great Western when "cap and collar" subsidy runs out. Of course they still operate the trains, but now on a management consulting contract where we pay all the bills. The risk is nationised here, the operators are mainly nationalised abroad. And we call this privatisation?
Well it's not privatised in any normal sense of the word, for the reasons you pay out. The railways receive more public subsidy now - up to four times on some measures - than they ever did under BR. And, as you say, many are in any event run by foreign govts. The entire setup is a bizarre journey through the Very Weird.
"up to four times on some measures"
I thought I'd disproved that? You were taking a one-year peak against a one-year trough. You also need to be careful about what the figures include. Can you provide a source, please?
The increased funding spike in the 2000s was needed to allow the network to cope with the massively increased traffic levels after years of managed shrinkage, using vastly costly schemes such as the WCML upgrade. For instance, figures for the current year are increased by £1.2 billion because of Crossrail costs.
Is including those a fair reflection?
Unless you think passenger traffic could have doubled and freight traffic increased without investment?
Good morning: today is UK economics day. At 9:30 we have RPI, CPI and PPI numbers, as well as ONS house price data. At 11:00, we have the CBI survey data on orders and prices,
We also have CPI inflation data from both the US and the Eurozone today. Europe, perhaps unsurprisingly, is expected to see prices shrink 0.1%, while the US is expected to see a 0.1% increase. Also out today is the US current account balance.
Actually, I missed a small positive from Spain. After two years of declining wages, we saw Spanish wages inch up 0.2% in 3Q.
Good morning: today is UK economics day. At 9:30 we have RPI, CPI and PPI numbers, as well as ONS house price data. At 11:00, we have the CBI survey data on orders and prices,
We also have CPI inflation data from both the US and the Eurozone today. Europe, perhaps unsurprisingly, is expected to see prices shrink 0.1%, while the US is expected to see a 0.1% increase. Also out today is the US current account balance.
And tomorrow brings us all the labour market stats
And Friday the final estimate of 3Q GDP - possibility of 0.9% growth rather than 0.8% announced in the original and first revisions?
Senior trade union leaders have said the Better Together campaign against Scottish independence risks being tarnished by significant donations from Tory donors and senior financiers.
The GMB union, one of the UK's largest, said union members and Labour activists would be alarmed that Tory donors, bankers and businesspeople linked to the intelligence services were on Better Together's latest list of backers.
Cynics would say that the fact that 3Q French GDP numbers are to be released (almost three months after the end of the quarter) on Christmas Eve is indicative of the fact that they're going to be absolutely terrible.
Good morning: today is UK economics day. At 9:30 we have RPI, CPI and PPI numbers, as well as ONS house price data. At 11:00, we have the CBI survey data on orders and prices,
We also have CPI inflation data from both the US and the Eurozone today. Europe, perhaps unsurprisingly, is expected to see prices shrink 0.1%, while the US is expected to see a 0.1% increase. Also out today is the US current account balance.
And tomorrow brings us all the labour market stats
And Friday the final estimate of 3Q GDP - possibility of 0.9% growth rather than 0.8% announced in the original and first revisions?
I wouldn't be surprised if it was revised up to 1.0% - there's almost no data from the UK that hasn't been excellent of late.
Good morning: today is UK economics day. At 9:30 we have RPI, CPI and PPI numbers, as well as ONS house price data. At 11:00, we have the CBI survey data on orders and prices,
We also have CPI inflation data from both the US and the Eurozone today. Europe, perhaps unsurprisingly, is expected to see prices shrink 0.1%, while the US is expected to see a 0.1% increase. Also out today is the US current account balance.
And tomorrow brings us all the labour market stats
And Friday the final estimate of 3Q GDP - possibility of 0.9% growth rather than 0.8% announced in the original and first revisions?
I wouldn't be surprised if it was revised up to 1.0% - there's almost no data from the UK that hasn't been excellent of late.
I particularly liked the YouGov data this morning.
That's rich coming from a professional overreactor. 'Cowering in your hairdresser's car' stung, didn't it?
Er, you what? Fraid I don't remember this lancing barb, sorry.
And given that I have personally likened my beloved, red-trimmed, pepper white Mini John Cooper Works to a "gay porn mogul's runaround", I doubt I'd have been offended by this reference.
Re Ed and Rail Nationalisation. The correct term surely should be repatriation, as the majority of franchises are already nationalised. Most are part owned - nationalised - by the French, Dutch or German state railways, or in the case of the various Arriva franchises wholly owned.
It's hard to argue that public sector businesses can't compete when the public sectors of foreign countries successfully bid for and win rail contracts here. Indeed a few months before the election the Tories has insisted on binning the Directly Operated East Coast franchise to relet it. Bidders declared so far are Virgin/Stagecoach, First/Keolis (french government) and Eurostar (french government). Don't it be funny if we "privatise" this franchise by handing all it's subsidy over to the taxpayers of la belle France?
Labour's case for repatriation is simple - why let foreign governments run our railways and not our own? Our government bears all the risk, specifies and pays for all new rolling stock, sets the fares structure, the timetable, even specifies livery in some new cases. The operator has zero risk, even handing the franchise back as as just happened with Great Western when "cap and collar" subsidy runs out. Of course they still operate the trains, but now on a management consulting contract where we pay all the bills. The risk is nationised here, the operators are mainly nationalised abroad. And we call this privatisation?
Well it's not privatised in any normal sense of the word, for the reasons you pay out. The railways receive more public subsidy now - up to four times on some measures - than they ever did under BR. And, as you say, many are in any event run by foreign govts. The entire setup is a bizarre journey through the Very Weird.
"up to four times on some measures"
I thought I'd disproved that? You were taking a one-year peak against a one-year trough. You also need to be careful about what the figures include. Can you provide a source, please?
The increased funding spike in the 2000s was needed to allow the network to cope with the massively increased traffic levels after years of managed shrinkage, using vastly costly schemes such as the WCML upgrade. For instance, figures for the current year are increased by £1.2 billion because of Crossrail costs.
Is including those a fair reflection?
Unless you think passenger traffic could have doubled and freight traffic increased without investment?
I have already provided a source - Christian Wolmar, the leading railway journalist in the UK.
Cynics would say that the fact that 3Q French GDP numbers are to be released (almost three months after the end of the quarter) on Christmas Eve is indicative of the fact that they're going to be absolutely terrible.
Indeed. The recent increase in the forecast for Q4 by the French Bank was truly bizarre as well. Not political at all of course.
Sort of reminds me when the OECD was reducing its forecasts for UK growth this year in February or March when it was already obvious that there had been a significant turning point.
As you said elsewhere all recent numbers for the UK have been astonishingly good. If Q3 doesn't quite make 1% I think there is an increasing chance that Q4 will, not least because the weather has so far been very mild with minimal disruption.
Re Ed and Rail Nationalisation. The correct term surely should be repatriation, as the majority of franchises are already nationalised. Most are part owned - nationalised - by the French, Dutch or German state railways, or in the case of the various Arriva franchises wholly owned.
It's hard to argue that public sector businesses can't compete when the public sectors of foreign countries successfully bid for and win rail contracts here. Indeed a few months before the election the Tories has insisted on binning the Directly Operated East Coast franchise to relet it. Bidders declared so far are Virgin/Stagecoach, First/Keolis (french government) and Eurostar (french government). Don't it be funny if we "privatise" this franchise by handing all it's subsidy over to the taxpayers of la belle France?
Labour's case for repatriation is simple - why let foreign governments run our railways and not our own? Our government bears all the risk, specifies and pays for all new rolling stock, sets the fares structure, the timetable, even specifies livery in some new cases. The operator has zero risk, even handing the franchise back as as just happened with Great Western when "cap and collar" subsidy runs out. Of course they still operate the trains, but now on a management consulting contract where we pay all the bills. The risk is nationised here, the operators are mainly nationalised abroad. And we call this privatisation?
Well it's not privatised in any normal sense of the word, for the reasons you pay out. The railways receive more public subsidy now - up to four times on some measures - than they ever did under BR. And, as you say, many are in any event run by foreign govts. The entire setup is a bizarre journey through the Very Weird.
"up to four times on some measures"
I thought I'd disproved that? You were taking a one-year peak against a one-year trough. You also need to be careful about what the figures include. Can you provide a source, please?
The increased funding spike in the 2000s was needed to allow the network to cope with the massively increased traffic levels after years of managed shrinkage, using vastly costly schemes such as the WCML upgrade. For instance, figures for the current year are increased by £1.2 billion because of Crossrail costs.
Is including those a fair reflection?
Unless you think passenger traffic could have doubled and freight traffic increased without investment?
I'm not criticising the public investment - merely pointing it out. The railways require public investment, and lots of it. That's the point - as you accept, being a supporter of renationalisation, as many sensible Tories are.
Re Ed and Rail Nationalisation. The correct term surely should be repatriation, as the majority of franchises are already nationalised. Most are part owned - nationalised - by the French, Dutch or German state railways, or in the case of the various Arriva franchises wholly owned.
It's hard to argue that public sector businesses can't compete when the public sectors of foreign countries successfully bid for and win rail contracts here. Indeed a few months before the election the Tories has insisted on binning the Directly Operated East Coast franchise to relet it. Bidders declared so far are Virgin/Stagecoach, First/Keolis (french government) and Eurostar (french government). Don't it be funny if we "privatise" this franchise by handing all it's subsidy over to the taxpayers of la belle France?
Labour's case for repatriation is simple - why let foreign governments run our railways and not our own? Our government bears all the risk, specifies and pays for all new rolling stock, sets the fares structure, the timetable, even specifies livery in some new cases. The operator has zero risk, even handing the franchise back as as just happened with Great Western when "cap and collar" subsidy runs out. Of course they still operate the trains, but now on a management consulting contract where we pay all the bills. The risk is nationised here, the operators are mainly nationalised abroad. And we call this privatisation?
Well it's not privatised in any normal sense of the word, for the reasons you pay out. The railways receive more public subsidy now - up to four times on some measures - than they ever did under BR. And, as you say, many are in any event run by foreign govts. The entire setup is a bizarre journey through the Very Weird.
"up to four times on some measures"
I thought I'd disproved that? You were taking a one-year peak against a one-year trough. You also need to be careful about what the figures include. Can you provide a source, please?
The increased funding spike in the 2000s was needed to allow the network to cope with the massively increased traffic levels after years of managed shrinkage, using vastly costly schemes such as the WCML upgrade. For instance, figures for the current year are increased by £1.2 billion because of Crossrail costs.
Is including those a fair reflection?
Unless you think passenger traffic could have doubled and freight traffic increased without investment?
I have already provided a source - Christian Wolmar, the leading railway journalist in the UK.
It should be noted the Wolmar is a candidate for Labour mayor of London. ;-)
From memory, the data is from a book published in 2005, with data before 2005. Why not use more up-to-date and comprehensive data? Or has the situation not changed in the last eight years?
Re Ed and Rail Nationalisation. The correct term surely should be repatriation, as the majority of franchises are already nationalised. Most are part owned - nationalised - by the French, Dutch or German state railways, or in the case of the various Arriva franchises wholly owned.
It's hard to argue that public sector businesses can't compete when the public sectors of foreign countries successfully bid for and win rail contracts here. Indeed a few months before the election the Tories has insisted on binning the Directly Operated East Coast franchise to relet it. Bidders declared so far are Virgin/Stagecoach, First/Keolis (french government) and Eurostar (french government). Don't it be funny if we "privatise" this franchise by handing all it's subsidy over to the taxpayers of la belle France?
Labour's case for repatriation is simple - why let foreign governments run our railways and not our own? Our government bears all the risk, specifies and pays for all new rolling stock, sets the fares structure, the timetable, even specifies livery in some new cases. The operator has zero risk, even handing the franchise back as as just happened with Great Western when "cap and collar" subsidy runs out. Of course they still operate the trains, but now on a management consulting contract where we pay all the bills. The risk is nationised here, the operators are mainly nationalised abroad. And we call this privatisation?
Well it's not privatised in any normal sense of the word, for the reasons you pay out. The railways receive more public subsidy now - up to four times on some measures - than they ever did under BR. And, as you say, many are in any event run by foreign govts. The entire setup is a bizarre journey through the Very Weird.
"up to four times on some measures"
I thought I'd disproved that? You were taking a one-year peak against a one-year trough. You also need to be careful about what the figures include. Can you provide a source, please?
The increased funding spike in the 2000s was needed to allow the network to cope with the massively increased traffic levels after years of managed shrinkage, using vastly costly schemes such as the WCML upgrade. For instance, figures for the current year are increased by £1.2 billion because of Crossrail costs.
Is including those a fair reflection?
Unless you think passenger traffic could have doubled and freight traffic increased without investment?
I'm not criticising the public investment - merely pointing it out. The railways require public investment, and lots of it. That's the point - as you accept, being a supporter of renationalisation, as many sensible Tories are.
I'm not a supporter of renationalisation. My attitude (which I have expressed enough times on here to bore everyone) is:
1) The current privatised system has had some successes. 2) It is, however, deeply flawed in some ways. 3) Some, or all, of those flaws may need fixing. 4) This could be done by altering the current franchising system, moving to a concessionary system, renationalising the network, moving to a Big Four or a.n.other system. 5) All the changes mentioned above would have downsides as well as upsides.
I'm open to renationalisation. But if it is to be done, it should be done because it is the best option to fix the problems with the current system rather than for ideological reasons.
And supporters of renationalisation have to say how they would maintain investment - something that caused BR massive problems. I don't trust Labour or the Conservatives on this.
Re Ed and Rail Nationalisation. The correct term surely should be repatriation, as the majority of franchises are already nationalised. Most are part owned - nationalised - by the French, Dutch or German state railways, or in the case of the various Arriva franchises wholly owned.
It's hard to argue that public sector businesses can't compete when the public sectors of foreign countries successfully bid for and win rail contracts here. Indeed a few months before the election the Tories has insisted on binning the Directly Operated East Coast franchise to relet it. Bidders declared so far are Virgin/Stagecoach, First/Keolis (french government) and Eurostar (french government). Don't it be funny if we "privatise" this franchise by handing all it's subsidy over to the taxpayers of la belle France?
Labour's case for repatriation is simple - why let foreign governments run our railways and not our own? Our government bears all the risk, specifies and pays for all new rolling stock, sets the fares structure, the timetable, even specifies livery in some new cases. The operator has zero risk, even handing the franchise back as as just happened with Great Western when "cap and collar" subsidy runs out. Of course they still operate the trains, but now on a management consulting contract where we pay all the bills. The risk is nationised here, the operators are mainly nationalised abroad. And we call this privatisation?
Well it's not privatised in any normal sense of the word, for the reasons you pay out. The railways receive more public subsidy now - up to four times on some measures - than they ever did under BR. And, as you say, many are in any event run by foreign govts. The entire setup is a bizarre journey through the Very Weird.
"up to four times on some measures"
I thought I'd disproved that? You were taking a one-year peak against a one-year trough. You also need to be careful about what the figures include. Can you provide a source, please?
The increased funding spike in the 2000s was needed to allow the network to cope with the massively increased traffic levels after years of managed shrinkage, using vastly costly schemes such as the WCML upgrade. For instance, figures for the current year are increased by £1.2 billion because of Crossrail costs.
Is including those a fair reflection?
Unless you think passenger traffic could have doubled and freight traffic increased without investment?
I have already provided a source - Christian Wolmar, the leading railway journalist in the UK.
Someone who has opposed privatization in principle as a matter of ideology irrespective of the facts on either side of the argument. It would be difficult to find a less biased source.
"There was always a eugenic undercurrent in Tory thinking: stop the lower classes breeding".
Polly Toynbee 17/12/2013
The woman is barking.
And ignorant. One of the main supporters of the Eugenics movement was the Fabian Society. As was the paper she writes for.
"Some of British socialism's most celebrated names were among the champions of eugenics - Sidney and Beatrice Webb (the founders of the Fabian Society), Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, even the New Statesman and the Manchester Guardian. "
"There was always a eugenic undercurrent in Tory thinking: stop the lower classes breeding".
Polly Toynbee 17/12/2013
The woman is barking.
Wow. Here's a snippet:
The language used by [Conservative MP Nadhim] Zahawi captures a swelling theme of the election – dividing the "taxpayer" from the "benefit taker" – with this: "Many couples take the decision to delay having a third or fourth child until they are sure they can afford it." The comments that followed were heavily anti-child: "If you can't afford kids why expect the state to keep them?" and "It's a parent's responsibility to provide, not the government". There lies the great dividing line: why should the state support children at all?
Fancy that; not having more children if you can't afford to feed, clothe and house them. It's just grotesque...
"There was always a eugenic undercurrent in Tory thinking: stop the lower classes breeding".
Polly Toynbee 17/12/2013
The woman is barking.
And ignorant. One of the main supporters of the Eugenics movement was the Fabian Society. As was the paper she writes for.
"Some of British socialism's most celebrated names were among the champions of eugenics - Sidney and Beatrice Webb (the founders of the Fabian Society), Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, even the New Statesman and the Manchester Guardian. "
No-one wants to bring back BR, a monolithic controlled state funded monster. Nor should we keep "privatisation", which is also state controlled and funded. The winning model is as the Germans and French have - state owned, state oversight, commercial funding. Deutsche Bahn not only runs German railways - with the same massive investment in rolling stock and infrastructure as we have - and lowerfares, it as a business is able to do things like borrow the money to buy Arriva in the UK.
So let the franchises all lapse. The state will purchase all trains and take all risks as it does now. The state will set timetables and fares as it does now. As it will always have to do on a network that will always make a loss but must be run for strategic national infrastructure purposes anyway. But what you do is let your state railway company operate commercially. Where privatisation has worked is in a bit of operational flair. Hire in private sector managers to run things. We paid First group £130m in subsidy for Great Western in 2010 alone. Their franchise would have seen then pay £826m to 2016 but as we the state are investing in infrastructure that risks delays and their profit, so they have handed the franchise back. To be hired as managers, dodging the £826m payment and instead getting yet more subsidy from us on top of the electrification work and new trains that we not they are paying for. Stop paying "profit" on loss making franchises to operators who take no risk. This isn't a market place, it's a free money shower. Our money.
"There was always a eugenic undercurrent in Tory thinking: stop the lower classes breeding".
Polly Toynbee 17/12/2013
The woman is barking.
And ignorant. One of the main supporters of the Eugenics movement was the Fabian Society. As was the paper she writes for.
"Some of British socialism's most celebrated names were among the champions of eugenics - Sidney and Beatrice Webb (the founders of the Fabian Society), Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, even the New Statesman and the Manchester Guardian. "
No-one wants to bring back BR, a monolithic controlled state funded monster. Nor should we keep "privatisation", which is also state controlled and funded. The winning model is as the Germans and French have - state owned, state oversight, commercial funding. Deutsche Bahn not only runs German railways - with the same massive investment in rolling stock and infrastructure as we have - and lowerfares, it as a business is able to do things like borrow the money to buy Arriva in the UK.
So let the franchises all lapse. The state will purchase all trains and take all risks as it does now. The state will set timetables and fares as it does now. As it will always have to do on a network that will always make a loss but must be run for strategic national infrastructure purposes anyway. But what you do is let your state railway company operate commercially. Where privatisation has worked is in a bit of operational flair. Hire in private sector managers to run things. We paid First group £130m in subsidy for Great Western in 2010 alone. Their franchise would have seen then pay £826m to 2016 but as we the state are investing in infrastructure that risks delays and their profit, so they have handed the franchise back. To be hired as managers, dodging the £826m payment and instead getting yet more subsidy from us on top of the electrification work and new trains that we not they are paying for. Stop paying "profit" on loss making franchises to operators who take no risk. This isn't a market place, it's a free money shower. Our money.
Something like Deutsche Bahn would be a good idea for our railways. Deutsche Bahn (I think) either will or already does own part of our transport system, so in effect the privatised part is nationalised (Other people's nations ) anyway. I completely agree the current system is a complete shower, we are lucky that Virgin has been running some franchises and First has not run more. I suspect people's views would be even more against if First had run say the WCML for past years.
No-one wants to bring back BR, a monolithic controlled state funded monster. Nor should we keep "privatisation", which is also state controlled and funded. The winning model is as the Germans and French have - state owned, state oversight, commercial funding. Deutsche Bahn not only runs German railways - with the same massive investment in rolling stock and infrastructure as we have - and lowerfares, it as a business is able to do things like borrow the money to buy Arriva in the UK.
So let the franchises all lapse. The state will purchase all trains and take all risks as it does now. The state will set timetables and fares as it does now. As it will always have to do on a network that will always make a loss but must be run for strategic national infrastructure purposes anyway. But what you do is let your state railway company operate commercially. Where privatisation has worked is in a bit of operational flair. Hire in private sector managers to run things. We paid First group £130m in subsidy for Great Western in 2010 alone. Their franchise would have seen then pay £826m to 2016 but as we the state are investing in infrastructure that risks delays and their profit, so they have handed the franchise back. To be hired as managers, dodging the £826m payment and instead getting yet more subsidy from us on top of the electrification work and new trains that we not they are paying for. Stop paying "profit" on loss making franchises to operators who take no risk. This isn't a market place, it's a free money shower. Our money.
Something like Deutsche Bahn would be a good idea for our railways. Deutsche Bahn (I think) either will or already does own part of our transport system, so in effect the privatised part is nationalised (Other people's nations ) anyway. I completely agree the current system is a complete shower, we are lucky that Virgin has been running some franchises and First has not run more. I suspect people's views would be even more against if First had run say the WCML for past years.
Good post.
Two good posts above. The trick is to let the state run and pay for the railway (as it already does, to the tunes of huge subsidies – even conservative measures put the annual current subsidy at twice that under BR in real terms, others put it considerably higher, you can argue the toss about the detail but the subsidy is under any measure eye-wateringly high). Meanwhile let the private sector have concessions (which would still be subsidised) to run the food and catering, etc etc, and let them compete on quality. Why I still can't buy a decent cooked breakfast on almost all services (apart from that which is nationalised, East Coast!) is beyond me. Crisps and warm lager seem to be the order of the day on most trains.
Supporters of the status quo need to answer
a) why East Coast has performed better while nationalised b) why we allow other nations to nationalise our franchises but not our own.
10 second economic comment: UK inflation numbers generally slightly lower than expected, across the board, with PPI input and output, as well as the CPI and RPI figures all indicating very subdued inflation levels.
UK house prices, otoh, came in ahead of expectations, up 5.5% YoY in November, from 3.8% in October.
No-one wants to bring back BR, a monolithic controlled state funded monster. Nor should we keep "privatisation", which is also state controlled and funded. The winning model is as the Germans and French have - state owned, state oversight, commercial funding. Deutsche Bahn not only runs German railways - with the same massive investment in rolling stock and infrastructure as we have - and lowerfares, it as a business is able to do things like borrow the money to buy Arriva in the UK.
So let the franchises all lapse. The state will purchase all trains and take all risks as it does now. The state will set timetables and fares as it does now. As it will always have to do on a network that will always make a loss but must be run for strategic national infrastructure purposes anyway. But what you do is let your state railway company operate commercially. Where privatisation has worked is in a bit of operational flair. Hire in private sector managers to run things. We paid First group £130m in subsidy for Great Western in 2010 alone. Their franchise would have seen then pay £826m to 2016 but as we the state are investing in infrastructure that risks delays and their profit, so they have handed the franchise back. To be hired as managers, dodging the £826m payment and instead getting yet more subsidy from us on top of the electrification work and new trains that we not they are paying for. Stop paying "profit" on loss making franchises to operators who take no risk. This isn't a market place, it's a free money shower. Our money.
Something like Deutsche Bahn would be a good idea for our railways. Deutsche Bahn (I think) either will or already does own part of our transport system, so in effect the privatised part is nationalised (Other people's nations ) anyway. I completely agree the current system is a complete shower, we are lucky that Virgin has been running some franchises and First has not run more. I suspect people's views would be even more against if First had run say the WCML for past years.
Good post.
Two good posts above. The trick is to let the state run and pay for the railway (as it already does, to the tunes of huge subsidies – even conservative measures put the annual current subsidy at twice that under BR in real terms, others put it considerably higher, you can argue the toss about the detail but the subsidy is under any measure eye-wateringly high). Meanwhile let the private sector have concessions (which would still be subsidised) to run the food and catering, etc etc, and let them compete on quality. Why I still can't buy a decent cooked breakfast on almost all services (apart from that which is nationalised, East Coast!) is beyond me. Crisps and warm lager seem to be the order of the day on most trains.
Supporters of the status quo need to answer
a) why East Coast has performed better while nationalised b) why we allow other nations to nationalise our franchises but not our own.
Let the franchises lapse.
So it is double now then, is it, for double the amount of traffic? You really need to look at the figures and learn what they mean. You have changed from four to two times in a matter of an hour.
If it is double, then maintaining the investment level per passenger is hardly evidence of a failure ...
To answer your questions (and I am not necessarily in favour of the status quo) a) You need to split out the effect of the Open Access operators on the EC. Also, note that other franchises are also profitable, e.g. SWT.
b) Because they invest whereas our government traditionally has not?
I haven't changed at all, as you know. Merely pointed out that there are numerous different estimates. The funding of the railways is so Byzantine it is almost impossible to get a single, copper-bottomed figure. The point is that this is a heavily tax-funded service that can be considered a private market in only the most warped of minds.
P.S. You endlessly try to ride two horses on this topic. You clearly think the existing system barmy, bonkers, mad. You are demonstrably open to a renationalisation of sorts. You have the expertise. Why not suggest a model for reform?
I haven't changed at all, as you know. Merely pointed out that there are numerous different estimates. The funding of the railways is so Byzantine it is almost impossible to get a single, copper-bottomed figure. The point is that this is a heavily tax-funded service that can be considered a private market in only the most warped of minds.
P.S. You endlessly try to ride two horses on this topic. You clearly think the existing system barmy, bonkers, mad. You are demonstrably open to a renationalisation of sorts. You have the expertise. Why not suggest a model for reform?
The figures are only complex if you want them to show an answer that they do not contain. ;-)
"You clearly think the existing system barmy, bonkers, mad."
No, I don't. Don't put words into my mouth. It has problems, some of which are major, but it is not mad.
What was mad was BR's investment starvation and controlled run-down by governments of all stripes.
Sadly, I don't have the expertise to recommend a model. But there are four mutually-exclusive models that *may* improve things (and also make some things worse):
1) Renationalise and hope (pray!) for continued investment. The signs and history for that are not good.
2) Keep the current system, but improve communications between NR and the franchisees, put more risk onto the franchisees, and give them longer franchises.
3) Move to a concessionary system, as is used in some places at the moment, for instance on the Tyne and Wear Metro.
4) Split the companies up into three or four regional railway organisations, ala the Big Four, with the infrastructure for each separate.
Arriva is fully owned by Deutche Bahn. They operate all the Arriva branded rail franchises - Wales, Cross Country, as well as Chiltern and Grand Central. As well as extensive bus networks in the north east and south east. And entertainingly they propose an open access London - Edinburgh rail operation under the GNER name to potentially compete with the French government should either First/Keolis or Eurostar win the East Coast. German and French governments competing for traffic on our privatised railway? Only in Britain.....
Comments
They are only 4 points from a champs league.
I may back them to do so.
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/football-specials/tottenham/qualify-for-champions-league
1) disgruntled Tory voters
2) people in the socio-economic middle who are looking over a cliff
3) bitter ex-labour
then
(1) should be more or less in proportion to the Tory vote
if marginals are marginal because they have a higher proportion of people in the socio-economic middle then (2) should be highest in marginals
(3) are concentrated in specific zones
then Ukip should do best where they get the best overlap between those three.
Also have MINUS 5 goal diff so actually need to gain 6 points.
Man C in 4th who are certain for CL so relevant gap is to Liverpool - 6 points so need to gain 7 points on Liverpool to go ahead.
I'm going to bed.
Moving swiftly on, the marginal polls are interesting: they show four local pictures where campaigning would be different if an election were called tomorrow: Folkestone becomes a UKIP/Con battle (as it stands); Bognor relatively safe Con; Crewe a Con/Lab marginally, probably Lab gain helped by UKIP; and Great Yarmouth a three-way marginal from which Lab may well profit.
You have a settled population somewhere containing say 100 young males age 12-24 and 100 young females age 12-24 and then you add 100 extra young males age 18-24.
I wonder what would happen.
It's interesting nowadays how many right wingers want to appropriate the likes of the Pistols for their particular world view.
The Dallas Cowboys blew a 23 point halftime lead yesterday. All they need is a new owner.
Obamacare already has an owner - and his promise that "If you like your policy you can keep it" was named as "Lie of the Year" by Politifact, and on the "top ten lies of the year" list by the Washington Post. A Quinnnipiac poll last week found that 52% think Obama is not honest and trustworthy. A Harvard Institute poll found that 56% disapprove of Obamacare.
We are now up to between 5 and 6 million policy cancellations due to Obamacare, depending on whose report you read. These are policies, not people, so it's many more people.
They tell us the website is improving, although they only release how many people have 'selected' policies, (meaning in their shopping basket or bought), and not give a breakdown as to the demographics. Apparently about 350,000 people have done so.
The problems with the front end of the website are just the beginning, and will be resolved at some point. The back end, which handles payments and sends the 834 data (name, ssn, policy bought, dependents etc) hasn't been completed yet. There are many reports in the press of problems. People are being declared medicare eligible who aren't. 834 data is often innaccurate in terms of contact information - name, address etc when sent to the insurance company, making it difficult or impossible for insurance companies to contact their customers. So come January 1, it's possible a slew of people could go to their doctors only to find that their doctor is not in their plan, or they don't have coverage. Most press reports put the percentage of applications in error at 20-25%, but the Washington Post last week estimated 30%.
Obamacare charges young people more to offset the cost of covering the sicker elderly, while fining them $95 next year if the don't. Polls show young people are unlikely to enroll, which is important because if they don't the cost model doesn't work.
The policies themselves suck. According to the New York Times, quoting Caroline F Pearson, a VP of Avalere Health who has aalyzed hundreads of the plans, as saying that although the premiums may be lower, copays and deductibles are much higher for prescriptions and medical services. Before they reach the cap on out-of-pocket costs, it will cost $6350 for an individual, $12,700 for a family. If you earn over $28,725 as an individual, or $48,823 for a family of 3 you will not get a subsidy on the exchanges.
The number of doctors and hospitals (including Sloane Kettering in NY and Cedars Sinai in LA) who have not signed up for the Obamacare plans, or have been dropped by insurers, is growing at an alarming rate. It looks increasingly that Obamacare is both raising costs and reducing care.
HHS last week isued new rules, showing how desperate things are -
* require insurers to accept payment thru Dec 31st for coverage Jan 1
* urge insurers to alow more time for premium payment and still have coverage
* encourage insurers to treat out-of-network as in-network.
* encourage insurers to refill prescriptions in Jan from previous plan.
Try to imagine what will happen next year when the employer mandate kicks in. How bad will that be?
On page 34552 of the Federal Register, the June 17,2010 issue, the following:
The department's mid-range estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013
Forbes and the Kaiser Family Foundation announced that as a result of their research, they estimate that more than 93 million Americans will see their workplace health care plans disrupted.
Cancellation letters have to give 90 days warning - they go out Oct 1, just over a month before the midterm elections.
This disaster is going to get worse as time goes on.
'Cowering in your hairdresser's car' stung, didn't it?
Well, that's fair enough. If that's really what UKIP supporters want, so be it, as long as they don't blame the sane for the consequences when they realise the extent of the mistake, circa 2016.
Meanwhile, sensible people will be managing their affairs as best they can to mitigate the damage: hope (and work) for the best but plan for the worst is usually a good strategy, and certainly so in this case.
He will be very unpopular for being so blatant about it.
But in Great Yarmouth it is vote Conservative, get Labour.
53% would rather vote UKIP than Conservative even if it lets in Miliband`s Labour government.
33% would rather vote Conservative than UKIP to keep Miliband out.
http://survation.com/2013/12/alan-bown-polls-4-new-constituencies/
In any case what we are seeing has nothing to do with David Cameron. It's the same nihilism which led to a non-party led by a clown getting 25% of the vote in Italy in February.
The best attempt was a leftie North London lawyer who, going through the list, suggested Harold Wilson. I could see the point, given the record on social reform and the fact that he kept us out of Vietnam, but Wilson was also more responsible than any other PM for the disastrous slide to the bottom of the European economic league and the kow-towing to the unions which took so long and so much pain to correct. He was of course also responsible for the wrecking of UK education.
I can't see any polling evidence that Labour or Libdem voters would support a more right-wing party to defeat the Tories to offset this.
Trying to scare people with the Miliband side of the metropolitan incompetant coin wont work when you're idolising the Cameron side of the same metropolitan incompetant coin. Some of us have been doing that for years.
Back when you were supporting Osborne supporting Brown's economic policies.
Or we might think it's fine for private people to max out where they can, but peers, selected etc, are under a general duty to act honestly (or similar).
Fixing the system is difficult as long as they stick to lifelong appointments. If he was paid a salary instead of attendance allowance he wouldn't need to turn up at all. While we're waiting for more long-term reform, perhaps as an interim measure all appointments should be limited to 5 years, renewable if the Appointments Commission are satisfied he's been an active member. That would also help avoid the constant growth in numbers of peers after every election as each PM adjusts upwards to reflect the new balance.
However, if UKIP is present and there is a real likelihood of a Miliband-led government 33% of UKIP voters indicated they would vote Conservative. 53% mentioned that they would stick with UKIP regardless. This has the potential to add 3-4% to any conservative margin over Labour, nationally.
Lab 38%
Con 36%
UKIP 11%
LD 8%
Changes since 2010:
Lab +8%
Con -1%
UKIP +8%
LD -16%
The think tank found people in their 40s and 50s are less likely to own a home than those 10 years older.
Their incomes are also no higher and their private pensions are smaller.
It suggests an end to the steadily rising incomes and living standards since World War Two."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25411181
Great Yarmouth -9 +4
Bognor Regis -5 +6
Folkestone +8 +10
Crewe & Nantwich -4 +11
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10521740/Forty-migrants-a-night-sneak-over-from-Calais-towns-deputy-mayor-says.html
It's hard to argue that public sector businesses can't compete when the public sectors of foreign countries successfully bid for and win rail contracts here. Indeed a few months before the election the Tories has insisted on binning the Directly Operated East Coast franchise to relet it. Bidders declared so far are Virgin/Stagecoach, First/Keolis (french government) and Eurostar (french government). Don't it be funny if we "privatise" this franchise by handing all it's subsidy over to the taxpayers of la belle France?
Labour's case for repatriation is simple - why let foreign governments run our railways and not our own? Our government bears all the risk, specifies and pays for all new rolling stock, sets the fares structure, the timetable, even specifies livery in some new cases. The operator has zero risk, even handing the franchise back as as just happened with Great Western when "cap and collar" subsidy runs out. Of course they still operate the trains, but now on a management consulting contract where we pay all the bills. The risk is nationised here, the operators are mainly nationalised abroad. And we call this privatisation?
1) There are signs that privatisation has been a success; freight traffic has increased, and passenger number doubled. Whilst it is the devil's job to work out cause and effect, the evidence in traffic growth coinciding with privatisation after 50 years of shrinkage is indicative.
2) I seriously doubt the BR setup could have dealt, or allowed, the above growth.
3) There are other systems - e.g. concessions - that might work better than both nationalisation and the current franchise setup.
4) Investment in nationalised industries is traditionally poor. Without wanting to be called a stalker, Nick Palmer's attitude to this was telling: steal investment to pay for tax credits, ffs.
Renationalising might be best. But it needs looking at properly and from a non-ideological point of view.
And what we won't be getting is the old BR.
I think both reactions to a single day's polls are slightly overdone but for the tories to be sitting only 1% short of their 2010 result at this point is indeed remarkable, particularly given the rise of UKIP.
We also have CPI inflation data from both the US and the Eurozone today. Europe, perhaps unsurprisingly, is expected to see prices shrink 0.1%, while the US is expected to see a 0.1% increase. Also out today is the US current account balance.
F1: it's like politics, but with much less incompetence. Now we've got the bloody odd statement from Ron Dennis that Alonso is welcome at McLaren:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25400798
In the past Alonso has said he had no problem with anyone at McLaren except one individual who was no longer there (ie Dennis).
Whitmarsh apparently (according to the piece) recently took a contract for Alonso to peruse.
"The Ferrari driver has also made it clear he would not return if Dennis had any involvement in the F1 programme."
It may be that Dennis is trying to undermine Whitmarsh (by the statement suggesting Dennis has any say over who the drivers are) and reduce the chances of Alonso returning (not sure why. Perhaps because if Dennis returned to control of the team then Alonso might leave).
"Alonso made it clear to Dennis he felt McLaren risked throwing away the title if they did not prioritise one driver over the other and continued to press his point. "
He turned out to be spot on. He and Hamilton drew on points and Raikkonen finished ahead by 1, and won the title.
It'll be interesting to see if Whitmarsh can deliver more in 2014. So far, his reign as team principal has not been great for the team.
I thought I'd disproved that? You were taking a one-year peak against a one-year trough. You also need to be careful about what the figures include. Can you provide a source, please?
The increased funding spike in the 2000s was needed to allow the network to cope with the massively increased traffic levels after years of managed shrinkage, using vastly costly schemes such as the WCML upgrade. For instance, figures for the current year are increased by £1.2 billion because of Crossrail costs.
Is including those a fair reflection?
Unless you think passenger traffic could have doubled and freight traffic increased without investment?
And Friday the final estimate of 3Q GDP - possibility of 0.9% growth rather than 0.8% announced in the original and first revisions?
Sort of reminds me when the OECD was reducing its forecasts for UK growth this year in February or March when it was already obvious that there had been a significant turning point.
As you said elsewhere all recent numbers for the UK have been astonishingly good. If Q3 doesn't quite make 1% I think there is an increasing chance that Q4 will, not least because the weather has so far been very mild with minimal disruption.
From memory, the data is from a book published in 2005, with data before 2005. Why not use more up-to-date and comprehensive data? Or has the situation not changed in the last eight years?
1) The current privatised system has had some successes.
2) It is, however, deeply flawed in some ways.
3) Some, or all, of those flaws may need fixing.
4) This could be done by altering the current franchising system, moving to a concessionary system, renationalising the network, moving to a Big Four or a.n.other system.
5) All the changes mentioned above would have downsides as well as upsides.
I'm open to renationalisation. But if it is to be done, it should be done because it is the best option to fix the problems with the current system rather than for ideological reasons.
And supporters of renationalisation have to say how they would maintain investment - something that caused BR massive problems. I don't trust Labour or the Conservatives on this.
Polly Toynbee 17/12/2013
The woman is barking.
"Some of British socialism's most celebrated names were among the champions of eugenics - Sidney and Beatrice Webb (the founders of the Fabian Society), Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, even the New Statesman and the Manchester Guardian. "
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled
So let the franchises all lapse. The state will purchase all trains and take all risks as it does now. The state will set timetables and fares as it does now. As it will always have to do on a network that will always make a loss but must be run for strategic national infrastructure purposes anyway. But what you do is let your state railway company operate commercially. Where privatisation has worked is in a bit of operational flair. Hire in private sector managers to run things. We paid First group £130m in subsidy for Great Western in 2010 alone. Their franchise would have seen then pay £826m to 2016 but as we the state are investing in infrastructure that risks delays and their profit, so they have handed the franchise back. To be hired as managers, dodging the £826m payment and instead getting yet more subsidy from us on top of the electrification work and new trains that we not they are paying for. Stop paying "profit" on loss making franchises to operators who take no risk. This isn't a market place, it's a free money shower. Our money.
She knows better but she just can't help herself.
Good post.
Did Ukip have visibility of which seats would be used in this marginal poll ?
Supporters of the status quo need to answer
a) why East Coast has performed better while nationalised
b) why we allow other nations to nationalise our franchises but not our own.
Let the franchises lapse.
UK house prices, otoh, came in ahead of expectations, up 5.5% YoY in November, from 3.8% in October.
If it is double, then maintaining the investment level per passenger is hardly evidence of a failure ...
To answer your questions (and I am not necessarily in favour of the status quo)
a) You need to split out the effect of the Open Access operators on the EC. Also, note that other franchises are also profitable, e.g. SWT.
b) Because they invest whereas our government traditionally has not?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/martin-griffiths/rail-nationalisation_b_3973007.html
I haven't changed at all, as you know. Merely pointed out that there are numerous different estimates. The funding of the railways is so Byzantine it is almost impossible to get a single, copper-bottomed figure. The point is that this is a heavily tax-funded service that can be considered a private market in only the most warped of minds.
P.S. You endlessly try to ride two horses on this topic. You clearly think the existing system barmy, bonkers, mad. You are demonstrably open to a renationalisation of sorts. You have the expertise. Why not suggest a model for reform?
"You clearly think the existing system barmy, bonkers, mad."
No, I don't. Don't put words into my mouth. It has problems, some of which are major, but it is not mad.
What was mad was BR's investment starvation and controlled run-down by governments of all stripes.
Sadly, I don't have the expertise to recommend a model. But there are four mutually-exclusive models that *may* improve things (and also make some things worse):
1) Renationalise and hope (pray!) for continued investment. The signs and history for that are not good.
2) Keep the current system, but improve communications between NR and the franchisees, put more risk onto the franchisees, and give them longer franchises.
3) Move to a concessionary system, as is used in some places at the moment, for instance on the Tyne and Wear Metro.
4) Split the companies up into three or four regional railway organisations, ala the Big Four, with the infrastructure for each separate.
The following may be of use:
http://www.railhub2.co.uk/rh4/business/briefs/RHB_franchise.php