politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Introducing the PB/YouGov Favourability Ratings – a new dev

IanB2 said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

The big disconnect between "Your MP" and "MPs generally" is interesting.

Your MP is a person (who half the respondents will have voted for) whereas MPs generally are a bunch of useless crooks.

There’s a similar situation with regard to GP services.

IanB2 said:

Surely the rise in passengers is driven by commuting, with cities (esp London) becoming unaffordable to live within and more expensive and impractical to drive into?

That's part of the story, but only part. It's interesting to see maps which show how passenger usage has increased on each station and line - it's not just obvious commuter lines.

Saying that *all* the increase is due to privatisation is as silly as saying that privatisation has had no effect and all the growth has been caused by other factors. But what I can say from having studied this a little is that the private companies are far more responsive to passengers' needs, and that the growing network we see today was incompatible with the mindset of most of BR's managers.

A very long, sprawling, partly inconclusive, but rather impressive article attempting to analyse the entirety of world political developments, from Trump to Brexit to ISIS to Merkel to lots more, with an important central theme of the phenomenon of illiberal democrats:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/08/the_week_democracy_died_how_brexit_nice_turkey_and_trump_are_all_connected.html

NickPalmer said:

A very long, sprawling, partly inconclusive, but rather impressive article attempting to analyse the entirety of world political developments, from Trump to Brexit to ISIS to Merkel to lots more, with an important central theme of the phenomenon of illiberal democrats:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/08/the_week_democracy_died_how_brexit_nice_turkey_and_trump_are_all_connected.html

Sadly I must dash, but given the url 'how democracy died' followed by Brexit, I'll bet it will go down like a lead balloon.

ydoethur said:

On a serious note (again) in History the exams are getting easier, not harder. Much more focus on blind sources (which is pointless) and much less on reasoned analysis backed by hard evidence.

Of course the poor quality of some of the marking means that's likely to be irrelevant, but it shows how regardless of the intentions the outcome is sometimes highly undesirable or even the opposite of what was intended.

What's the point of a blind source? In order to evaluate source material, you need to know who the author was, what their biases were, who contradicts them etc.

Interesting that both the incumbent U.S. president, a Democrat and the incumbent UK P.M., a Tory, both have the highest favourability ratings. Also interesting that while Remainers like Obama, Merkel and Clinton best and put UKIP and Trump bottom, Leavers put May, Johnson, Obama and UKIP top and MPs and the SNP bottom (both behind Trump)

eek said:

ydoethur said:

On a serious note (again) in History the exams are getting easier, not harder. Much more focus on blind sources (which is pointless) and much less on reasoned analysis backed by hard evidence.

Of course the poor quality of some of the marking means that's likely to be irrelevant, but it shows how regardless of the intentions the outcome is sometimes highly undesirable or even the opposite of what was intended.

Thankfully neither of my twins are doing history in Year 10 (they have both now switched to Geography)... Given that they are the full guinea pigs for the new style GCSE's I'm glad that they only thing we have to worry about is the field research paper worth between 10-20% as no one knows yet..

Don't be so sure there will be no problems In Geography. The residential field course may still cause problems and if you have two doing it, is going to be expensive for you.

That said, it is much closer to the old GCSE than the History equivalent so there is likely to be less experimentation.

Alistair said:

MaxPB said:

Generation safe space are going to get a shock in two days according to headteachers. Finally it seems like the government are making exams tougher again. The Labour years of falling standards and lower difficulty were a joke.

That's nothing do with Labour. The system of competing exam boards in England who explicitly advertise that if you go with them your school will get more A's sees to that.

The only people who could fix that would be Universities to announce that a B in AQA history is the equivalent of an A from EDEXCEL.

Unfortunately universities are incentivised not to push this point as they can take as many people as they can with 3Bs or above...

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. F/Mr. Doethur, ... what?

They're reducing things like reasoning, evidence and sound sources to focus on the anonymous? How the hell is that supposed to make sense?

FFS.

It was devised by the DFES, Mr Dancer. That I think on its own answers your question.

But seriously, on the old A-level such questions accounted for about 8% of the overall mark, which was OK. Now they account for approximately 30% of the mark, which is absurd.

What I found really offensive was that the boards and the DfES blamed the university history departments for it, saying this greater emphasis was what they wanted - despite the fact that two academic advisers, one a personal friend and one a friend of a friend, had resigned from the panel in protest at them being included at all.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, when Hannibal lost a battle to Scipio it was because he was forced to defend his home city [which was a place not noted for common sense, unlike Rome], whilst facing veteran forces under a great command, himself equipped with mostly fresh troops of dubious quality.

When Caesar lost to Pompey at Dyrrachium, he chose to attack with veteran forces and managed to be defeated by newly raised troops.

Also worth noting that, after the respective wars ended, Hannibal became ruler of Carthage. Caesar got murdered by his own side.

Caesar become a byword for Kings.

Hannibal less so.

Because Caesar won the war, loser Hannibal lost the war.

IanB2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

PlatoSaid said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

These polls are a hugely welcome development for the site and for British polling in general. Having a series of favourability scores will be very helpful both for the individual ratings and - going forward - for the changes over time.

On these figures, what's clear to me is the extent to which the country is divided between Remain and Leave - it's probably a bigger divide in some ways that between party support and certainly than between, say, men and women or rich and poor. What the causality is there though is harder to say. Do people divide their views because they are Remain or Leave (i.e. is their Euro-vote preference driving their other opinions), or is the split deeper than that, with Remain and Leave also consequences or that difference in outlook?

Partly it's a right/left split. Right wing voters went 70/30 Leave, left wing voters 2/1 Remain.

To get meaningful numbers, you should break it down further, to see if there are significant differences between right wing Remain/Leave voters, and left wing Remain/Leave voters.

I find the contrasting view of SNP is fascinating

Hostility to the SNP among eurosceptic English and Welsh voters is a winning card for the Conservatives.

It seems to be becoming a winning (or at least runner up) card for unionist Scottish voters as well.

It was always assumed that ScotIndy would be a disaster for Labour. But now, with the prospect of few Scottish seats for a generation at least, maybe Labour would be better off without the millstone of ever-prospective independence around its neck, by actually letting Scotland go? In E&W the Tories would lose their main card, and in Scotland the SNP its purpose.

It is easier for Labour to win power via a deal with the SNP than via a majority in England and Wales especially with Corbyn as leader. The SNP could be a Scottish Fianna Fail if Scotland went independent

JosiasJessop said:

IanB2 said:

Surely the rise in passengers is driven by commuting, with cities (esp London) becoming unaffordable to live within and more expensive and impractical to drive into?

That's part of the story, but only part. It's interesting to see maps which show how passenger usage has increased on each station and line - it's not just obvious commuter lines.

Saying that *all* the increase is due to privatisation is as silly as saying that privatisation has had no effect and all the growth has been caused by other factors. But what I can say from having studied this a little is that the private companies are far more responsive to passengers' needs, and that the growing network we see today was incompatible with the mindset of most of BR's managers.

Sadly it isn't the network that is growing, but rather the number of people using the network we have (or were left with by Beeching).

The joys of going from Bedfordshire to Heathrow at 70mph uninterrupted on the M1 and M25 with the message signs saying things like Junction 16 M40 8 miles 8 minutes...

Alas you need to be travelling no later than approx 5am to see this - and it is still busy then.

eek said:

I'm not expecting it to be problem free but at least I personally know their Geography teacher (she basically wrote half the appeal statement that got them into the school). Also I don't think its residential courses for us we have enough suitable places within an hour or so's drive (Dales, Moors, Lakes)....

The concern at the school is how do you compare the very different approaches schools will take to this field work exam - it used to be that schools in less fortunate parts of the country could avoid that bit...

They're not the only ones. I have had many conversations about this with the Head of Geography about how he will be doing it, and we're still guessing a bit.

One school in Lichfield is making it a compulsory residential. Just to confuse matter, that's a compulsory residential in Iceland studying volcanoes. That's why I was alarmed for the expense you might have to meet.

ThreeQuidder said:

IanB2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Corbyn speaks:

'The Southern rail debacle just goes to show how private transport operators cannot be trusted with having passengers' best interests at heart," Mr Corbyn said in advance of launching his "Transport Tuesday" initiative.

Or, alternatively: The Southern rail debacle just goes to show how unions cannot be trusted with having passengers' best interests at heart.

"Public ownership of our railways is needed now to fix the transport nightmare we are currently faced with, and we know there is overwhelming support among the British public for a people's railway."

Yet again, he's got an answer and is trying to make the question fit. As for transport nightmare: can he not remember BR?

Those who wish for the railways to be renationalised are harking back to a golden age that never existed.

As an illustration of this, I remember (on more than one occassion) my father coming home very late from London because his train had been delayed and the driver had 'clocked off', and pretty much abandoned the train, having completed the hours for his shift, but two stations and 11 miles shy of the terminus of our branch line where we lived.

It may not have been a golden age in terms of service, but it certainly was in terms of ticket pricing, which was simple and clear (and cheaper, in real terms).

Yesterday I was booking a rail trip, and precisely the same single journey, same stations and time, was £75 on the national rail site but £28 on trainline.

That shouldn't be possible because the various sites all use the same ticketing database.

Well I checked National Rail again just now, and the prices are now down to the same level as trainline. But they were not, yesterday, otherwise I wouldn't have gone near trainline in the first place; how do they hope to make money when they add a booking fee on top and charge more for postage than the other sites?

If you are right I guess the only explanation is a mysterious and dramatic price drop during the few minutes between sites?

IanB2 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

IanB2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Corbyn speaks:

'The Southern rail debacle just goes to show how private transport operators cannot be trusted with having passengers' best interests at heart," Mr Corbyn said in advance of launching his "Transport Tuesday" initiative.

Or, alternatively: The Southern rail debacle just goes to show how unions cannot be trusted with having passengers' best interests at heart.

"Public ownership of our railways is needed now to fix the transport nightmare we are currently faced with, and we know there is overwhelming support among the British public for a people's railway."

Yet again, he's got an answer and is trying to make the question fit. As for transport nightmare: can he not remember BR?

Those who wish for the railways to be renationalised are harking back to a golden age that never existed.

As an illustration of this, I remember (on more than one occassion) my father coming home very late from London because his train had been delayed and the driver had 'clocked off', and pretty much abandoned the train, having completed the hours for his shift, but two stations and 11 miles shy of the terminus of our branch line where we lived.

It may not have been a golden age in terms of service, but it certainly was in terms of ticket pricing, which was simple and clear (and cheaper, in real terms).

Yesterday I was booking a rail trip, and precisely the same single journey, same stations and time, was £75 on the national rail site but £28 on trainline.

That shouldn't be possible because the various sites all use the same ticketing database.

Well I checked National Rail again just now, and the prices are now down to the same level as trainline. But they were not, yesterday, otherwise I wouldn't have gone near trainline in the first place; how do they hope to make money when they add a booking fee on top and charge more for postage than the other sites?

If you are right I guess the only explanation is a mysterious and dramatic price drop during the few minutes between sites?

The price could have been cached. Or there could indeed have been the price drop. Train ticket prices are as complicated as airline prices.

I think people are getting a bit confused by the words I'm using. A 'blind source' in this context means one they haven't seen before (this is the phrase the exam board uses). They are told who wrote it. However, the question is then about the source, not about the information in it.

Furthermore, the exam boards have dramatically reduced the amount of contextual information they provide on their sources, including removing further information on the authors. Which is not terribly helpful given it is sometimes hard to work out their leanings from the tiny, often edited extract provided.

Looks like we might as well go all prepper and just eat home grown food after all (see debate the other day)

Bananas to be wiped out in 5 years according to Dacre:

http://dailym.ai/2aYE9on

Patrick said:

Obama net +46% ??????
Does not compute!
WTF is going on with the British public? Did education standards drop or something? This is the hardest evidence I have ever seen for the triumph of image management over content.

Think of it this way Patrick. US domestic policy doesn't directly affect us, while foreign policy ventures do. Under Bush, the effects were disastrous and extensive, so Obama's policy of drift has been an improvement for us if hardly for the people of Africa, Arabia and the Caucasus.

Meanwhile few know or care about the failures of his domestic policy, so that doesn't impact on their view of him. Coupled to a genuine rhetorical talent that matches Bill Clinton and an ability so far as we know to keep his hands off young women, it's not surprising that those who know of him only superficially view him very positively.

He will also do well compared to his successor. Clinton has all his drawbacks and none of his talents, and as for Trump...

Morning all.

The New YouGov poll looks great. However, as a cynic who doubts most respondents have a significant awareness of their own domestic politicians, let alone foreign leaders, I’ll take the Merkel, Putin, Trump etc figures, with a large pinch of salt.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Looks like we might as well go all prepper and just eat home grown food after all (see debate the other day)

Bananas to be wiped out in 5 years according to Dacre:

http://dailym.ai/2aYE9on

During that period they will of a Dacre-apporved shape, though!

MaxPB said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

The joys of going from Bedfordshire to Heathrow at 70mph uninterrupted on the M1 and M25 with the message signs saying things like Junction 16 M40 8 miles 8 minutes...

Alas you need to be travelling no later than approx 5am to see this - and it is still busy then.

Now just imagine the hub was at Gatwick and you had to go all the way down to Surrey!

Tbat would be great. Walk to station, get on Thameslink, get off at Gatwick airport.

Oh for the days when Nationwide Airlines flew from Joburg to Gatwick.

Gatwick is just so much more accesible by public transport.

IanB2 said:

JosiasJessop said:

IanB2 said:

Surely the rise in passengers is driven by commuting, with cities (esp London) becoming unaffordable to live within and more expensive and impractical to drive into?

That's part of the story, but only part. It's interesting to see maps which show how passenger usage has increased on each station and line - it's not just obvious commuter lines.

Saying that *all* the increase is due to privatisation is as silly as saying that privatisation has had no effect and all the growth has been caused by other factors. But what I can say from having studied this a little is that the private companies are far more responsive to passengers' needs, and that the growing network we see today was incompatible with the mindset of most of BR's managers.

Sadly it isn't the network that is growing, but rather the number of people using the network we have (or were left with by Beeching).

True, there has been relatively little growth in the physical network. But it has been growing, unlike in BR times when it was constantly shrinking.

I was referring (though misusing the terms) to both the increase in 'routes' and the number of services on those routes.

It looks as though a significant proportion of the growth in passengers occurs when more services are laid on a route. This may be due to a decrease in overcrowding attracting passengers or, more likely, that you are more likely to use the train if there is a service every half-hour instead of every hour, meaning that you wait less for a train and are more likely to catch a connection. Or even one every fifteen minutes instead of half-hour.

The quality of many stations has also improved immeasurably since privatisation. Just look at photos of stations in the 1970s and 1980s and them now. This perhaps started with Liverpool Street's renovation in the 1980s. (*)

I only travelled on BR in the last decade of its existence, but I have little doubt that the current railway is much better for passenger comfort and convenience. As an example: Pacer trains are widely derided, but when they were introduced in the 1980s they were seen as being better than the first-generation DMUs they replaced.

(*) When the adjacent Broad Street station was sadly closed.

ThreeQuidder said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

Corbyn speaks:

'The Southern rail debacle just goes to show how private transport operators cannot be trusted with having passengers' best interests at heart," Mr Corbyn said in advance of launching his "Transport Tuesday" initiative.

Or, alternatively: The Southern rail debacle just goes to show how unions cannot be trusted with having passengers' best interests at heart.

"Public ownership of our railways is needed now to fix the transport nightmare we are currently faced with, and we know there is overwhelming support among the British public for a people's railway."

Yet again, he's got an answer and is trying to make the question fit. As for transport nightmare: can he not remember BR?

The purpose of companies is to make profits for their shareholders. The purpose of unions is to look after their members. NEITHER of them either do or should be expected to put passengers first, except insofar as it assists or is at least neutral with respect to their primary purpose.

That's why key infrastructure like railways should be publicly owned, since the purpose of governments is to represent voters, including passengers. Even better, if you think they do a rubbish job, you have recourse (voting), which you don't have with a regional monopoly rail company or a trade union of which you aren't a member.

It's an issue on which Corbyn and the public are largely in agreement.

The staff should be expected to put the passengers first: that is their job. If they don't want to do that they should leave and let the company replace them.

Also it's naive to assume governments will put passengers first. They respond to those with the loudest voices. In practice this will mean higher eYes (don't want to fight the unions) and artifically low fares . Result is underinvestment, chronic unprofitability, a long term drain on the taxpayer and a steady decline in the quality of the system

Patrick said:

tlg86 said:

Patrick said:

Obama net +46% ??????
Does not compute!
WTF is going on with the British public? Did education standards drop or something? This is the hardest evidence I have ever seen for the triumph of image management over content.

Some Leavers were probably favourable to him because they think he did them a favour!

He's the shittiest president of modern times by a country mile. I really don't get it.

He is a lot better than George W Bush and will probably have been better than either Hillary or Trump. He is not as good as Reagan or Bill Clinton but about level with Bush Snr

ydoethur said:

I think people are getting a bit confused by the words I'm using. A 'blind source' in this context means one they haven't seen before (this is the phrase the exam board uses). They are told who wrote it. However, the question is then about the source, not about the information in it.

Furthermore, the exam boards have dramatically reduced the amount of contextual information they provide on their sources, including removing further information on the authors. Which is not terribly helpful given it is sometimes hard to work out their leanings from the tiny, often edited extract provided.

That sounds less like History and more like English comprehension...

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

The big disconnect between "Your MP" and "MPs generally" is interesting.

Your MP is a person (who half the respondents will have voted for) whereas MPs generally are a bunch of useless crooks.

There’s a similar situation with regard to GP services.

I think we are probably on the verge of a big switch to private GP services. A few years back I had terrible sinusitis. Suffered for a couple of days but managed to get GP appointment.

New doc at GP said it wasnt bad enough to give antibiotics and that I should just steam it.

Went from there to London to work. Pain got worse. Not fancying being laid up for the bank holiday I phoned a private GP service near Bank. Appointment 40 mins later. Thorough unrushed examination by nurse who diagnosed acute sinusitis. Prescribed antibiotics which they promptly supplied. £70. Plus that included the prescription so £61 really when you take off NHS prescription charge.

They also offered an annual season ticket for about £200.

So much better than NHS and pretty reasonable cost.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

MaxPB said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

The joys of going from Bedfordshire to Heathrow at 70mph uninterrupted on the M1 and M25 with the message signs saying things like Junction 16 M40 8 miles 8 minutes...

Alas you need to be travelling no later than approx 5am to see this - and it is still busy then.

Now just imagine the hub was at Gatwick and you had to go all the way down to Surrey!

Tbat would be great. Walk to station, get on Thameslink, get off at Gatwick airport.

Oh for the days when Nationwide Airlines flew from Joburg to Gatwick.

Gatwick is just so much more accesible by public transport.

About the same from here. (N Essex)

PlatoSaid said:

ydoethur said:

Patrick said:

Obama net +46% ??????
Does not compute!
WTF is going on with the British public? Did education standards drop or something? This is the hardest evidence I have ever seen for the triumph of image management over content.

Think of it this way Patrick. US domestic policy doesn't directly affect us, while foreign policy ventures do. Under Bush, the effects were disastrous and extensive, so Obama's policy of drift has been an improvement for us if hardly for the people of Africa, Arabia and the Caucasus.

Meanwhile few know or care about the failures of his domestic policy, so that doesn't impact on their view of him. Coupled to a genuine rhetorical talent that matches Bill Clinton and an ability so far as we know to keep his hands off young women, it's not surprising that those who know of him only superficially view him very positively.

He will also do well compared to his successor. Clinton has all his drawbacks and none of his talents, and as for Trump...

I'd argue it's even simpler - being black, smoothly dressed and sounding professorial/learned is more than enough for the casual TV watcher. I was initially impressed - then paid attention to a Q&A he did at Facebook midway through his first term. A content free 2hrs and answered IIRC 4 questions. He's such an empty suit.

Answering absolutely nothing in 2 hours is a skill I really would like to have...

PlatoSaid said:

ydoethur said:

Patrick said:

Obama net +46% ??????
Does not compute!
WTF is going on with the British public? Did education standards drop or something? This is the hardest evidence I have ever seen for the triumph of image management over content.

Think of it this way Patrick. US domestic policy doesn't directly affect us, while foreign policy ventures do. Under Bush, the effects were disastrous and extensive, so Obama's policy of drift has been an improvement for us if hardly for the people of Africa, Arabia and the Caucasus.

Meanwhile few know or care about the failures of his domestic policy, so that doesn't impact on their view of him. Coupled to a genuine rhetorical talent that matches Bill Clinton and an ability so far as we know to keep his hands off young women, it's not surprising that those who know of him only superficially view him very positively.

He will also do well compared to his successor. Clinton has all his drawbacks and none of his talents, and as for Trump...

I'd argue it's even simpler - being black, smoothly dressed and sounding professorial/learned is more than enough for the casual TV watcher. I was initially impressed - then paid attention to a Q&A he did at Facebook midway through his first term. A content free 2hrs and answered IIRC 4 questions. He's such an empty suit.

The American Chucka Umuna, perchance?

HYUFD said:

Patrick said:

tlg86 said:

Patrick said:

Obama net +46% ??????
Does not compute!
WTF is going on with the British public? Did education standards drop or something? This is the hardest evidence I have ever seen for the triumph of image management over content.

Some Leavers were probably favourable to him because they think he did them a favour!

He's the shittiest president of modern times by a country mile. I really don't get it.

He is a lot better than George W Bush and will probably have been better than either Hillary or Trump. He is not as good as Reagan or Bill Clinton but about level with Bush Snr

Better than Nixon. Not as good as Johnson, apart from the latter’s being involved with the Vietnam War.

Given the way the US system works though, to be an effective (is that the same as good?) President one needs to have at least one sympathetic House of Congress.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

The big disconnect between "Your MP" and "MPs generally" is interesting.

Your MP is a person (who half the respondents will have voted for) whereas MPs generally are a bunch of useless crooks.

There’s a similar situation with regard to GP services.

I think we are probably on the verge of a big switch to private GP services. A few years back I had terrible sinusitis. Suffered for a couple of days but managed to get GP appointment.

New doc at GP said it wasnt bad enough to give antibiotics and that I should just steam it.

Went from there to London to work. Pain got worse. Not fancying being laid up for the bank holiday I phoned a private GP service near Bank. Appointment 40 mins later. Thorough unrushed examination by nurse who diagnosed acute sinusitis. Prescribed antibiotics which they promptly supplied. £70. Plus that included the prescription so £61 really when you take off NHS prescription charge.

They also offered an annual season ticket for about £200.

So much better than NHS and pretty reasonable cost.

If everyone goes private then you'll have the same overutilisation problem causing short examination times and long waits.

Private GPs only 'work' at the moments as there are the public GPs taking the strain.

JosiasJessop said:

True, there has been relatively little growth in the physical network. But it has been growing, unlike in BR times when it was constantly shrinking.

I was referring (though misusing the terms) to both the increase in 'routes' and the number of services on those routes.

It looks as though a significant proportion of the growth in passengers occurs when more services are laid on a route. This may be due to a decrease in overcrowding attracting passengers or, more likely, that you are more likely to use the train if there is a service every half-hour instead of every hour, meaning that you wait less for a train and are more likely to catch a connection. Or even one every fifteen minutes instead of half-hour.

The quality of many stations has also improved immeasurably since privatisation. Just look at photos of stations in the 1970s and 1980s and them now. This perhaps started with Liverpool Street's renovation in the 1980s. (*)

I only travelled on BR in the last decade of its existence, but I have little doubt that the current railway is much better for passenger comfort and convenience. As an example: Pacer trains are widely derided, but when they were introduced in the 1980s they were seen as being better than the first-generation DMUs they replaced.

(*) When the adjacent Broad Street station was sadly closed.

The pacers were a cheap solution to stop Thatcher implementing the Serpell report and closing lines wholesale.

I think what is driving it is the rising congestion on roads making driving unpleasant, uncomfortable and unreliable journey time wise along with ever greater parking charges and restrictions.

Last may the first train of the year rolled up at Okehampton. This runs sundays only principally for people to visit Dartmoor. The crew were astonished to find over 100 people on the platform travelling as far as Maidstone.

Similarly a new service Summer Saturdays one each way only from London to Weymouth via Salisbury and Yeovil has been so well used that it has had to be increased from three to five coaches.

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

True, there has been relatively little growth in the physical network. But it has been growing, unlike in BR times when it was constantly shrinking.

...

I only travelled on BR in the last decade of its existence, but I have little doubt that the current railway is much better for passenger comfort and convenience. As an example: Pacer trains are widely derided, but when they were introduced in the 1980s they were seen as being better than the first-generation DMUs they replaced.

(*) When the adjacent Broad Street station was sadly closed.

First paragraph is not quite fair JJ. Cannock was reconnected to the national network under BR, when the Chase line was promoted from freight only status. It wasn't common, but it happened.

Entirely agree with your second paragraph. BR's record in the provinces was absolutely dismal, especially in terms of punctuality, comfort and service. Things have improved enormously since privatisation. And it's not just where there is no alternative. The Cambrian lines are much more heavily used despite their remoteness and low speeds. In the 1980s you had a one car train every two hours from Mac along the lines. Now they are two car trains every hour, and they are well used.

Oh, indeed it happened. Willington station in South Derbyshire also reopened in late BR times, albeit that was on a passenger line. There was also an abortive first attempt at reopening the station at Corby in 1987, although BR closed it a few years later. It has since reopened again, and passenger numbers have doubled.

In fact, Corby's two reopenings are an indication of privatisation's success. BR could not make the station work. The private companies have.

But think of all the lines we lost, both passenger and freight.

Think of the lucky escape we had when the Settle and Carlisle was saved. The Woodhead line was not so lucky.

The Serpell report is also well worth studying. Imagine if that had gone through!

JosiasJessop said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

True, there has been relatively little growth in the physical network. But it has been growing, unlike in BR times when it was constantly shrinking.

...

I only travelled on BR in the last decade of its existence, but I have little doubt that the current railway is much better for passenger comfort and convenience. As an example: Pacer trains are widely derided, but when they were introduced in the 1980s they were seen as being better than the first-generation DMUs they replaced.

(*) When the adjacent Broad Street station was sadly closed.

First paragraph is not quite fair JJ. Cannock was reconnected to the national network under BR, when the Chase line was promoted from freight only status. It wasn't common, but it happened.

Entirely agree with your second paragraph. BR's record in the provinces was absolutely dismal, especially in terms of punctuality, comfort and service. Things have improved enormously since privatisation. And it's not just where there is no alternative. The Cambrian lines are much more heavily used despite their remoteness and low speeds. In the 1980s you had a one car train every two hours from Mac along the lines. Now they are two car trains every hour, and they are well used.

Oh, indeed it happened. Willington station in South Derbyshire also reopened in late BR times, albeit that was on a passenger line. There was also an abortive first attempt at reopening the station at Corby in 1987, although BR closed it a few years later. It has since reopened again, and passenger numbers have doubled.

In fact, Corby's two reopenings are an indication of privatisation's success. BR could not make the station work. The private companies have.

But think of all the lines we lost, both passenger and freight.

Think of the lucky escape we had when the Settle and Carlisle was saved. The Woodhead line was not so lucky.

The Serpell report is also well worth studying. Imagine if that had gone through!

Having looked at it, it is hard to imagine railways could have survived at all. A classic accountant's mentality that assumed passengers went from station to station.

The Waverley route was a loss, but the worst was and remains the Great Central. If we still had that, we wouldn't be arguing over HS2 now. And if it hadn't been sold off for building we could just put it back.

Good morning all.

Most attractive aspect of rail travel was that from the 90s onward I could actually work on the train. Given my billing rate this made it a no-brainer over the alternatives.

Alistair said:

Patrick said:

tlg86 said:

Patrick said:

Obama net +46% ??????
Does not compute!
WTF is going on with the British public? Did education standards drop or something? This is the hardest evidence I have ever seen for the triumph of image management over content.

Some Leavers were probably favourable to him because they think he did them a favour!

He's the shittiest president of modern times by a country mile. I really don't get it.

Obama stood (twice) on a platform of healthcare reform and got it through a hostile congress and senate

Getting legislation passed is not a measure of success. Obamacare is an out and out failure. Trump won't even need to repeal it if he gets elected as it is about to implode anyway. Obama lied blatantly to get it passed and now premiums are exploding upwards as (no shit Sherlock) the healthy young are avoiding participation. Obama has profoundly damaged the US health system in an act of pure petulance. Not being able to afford health insurance in the US is a serous serious problem. History will not be kind to him.

ThreeQuidder said:

IanB2 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

IanB2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Corbyn speaks:

'The Southern rail debacle just goes to show how private transport operators cannot be trusted with having passengers' best interests at heart," Mr Corbyn said in advance of launching his "Transport Tuesday" initiative.

Or, alternatively: The Southern rail debacle just goes to show how unions cannot be trusted with having passengers' best interests at heart.

"Public ownership of our railways is needed now to fix the transport nightmare we are currently faced with, and we know there is overwhelming support among the British public for a people's railway."

Yet again, he's got an answer and is trying to make the question fit. As for transport nightmare: can he not remember BR?

Those who wish for the railways to be renationalised are harking back to a golden age that never existed.

As an illustration of this, I remember (on more than one occassion) my father coming home very late from London because his train had been delayed and the driver had 'clocked off', and pretty much abandoned the train, having completed the hours for his shift, but two stations and 11 miles shy of the terminus of our branch line where we lived.

It may not have been a golden age in terms of service, but it certainly was in terms of ticket pricing, which was simple and clear (and cheaper, in real terms).

Yesterday I was booking a rail trip, and precisely the same single journey, same stations and time, was £75 on the national rail site but £28 on trainline.

That shouldn't be possible because the various sites all use the same ticketing database.

Well I checked National Rail again just now, and the prices are now down to the same level as trainline. But they were not, yesterday, otherwise I wouldn't have gone near trainline in the first place; how do they hope to make money when they add a booking fee on top and charge more for postage than the other sites?

If you are right I guess the only explanation is a mysterious and dramatic price drop during the few minutes between sites?

I can think of a couple of possibilities:

(1) a database glitch, perhaps if it's a long way in advance and the cheaper tickets hadn't filtered through, or
(2) sorry, I can't think of a better way to put this, user error.

I generally recommend using one of the TOC websites, they don't charge fees like Trainline.

One of the under-the-hood changes of the last few years is the growth of distributed databases. These have a feature that can be quite disconcerting for the unwary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eventual_consistency

AlastairMeeks said:

I'd be interested in hearing why those people in the minority think Barack Obama has been so bad. He seems to have been reasonably adequate to me, bearing in mind the very difficult circumstances in which he took office.

I'm cautiously hopeful that machine politician Hillary Clinton will be a machine politician president in the vein of LBJ. That wouldn't be too shabby.

In the event of a Trump defeat, how will the Republican party react? If they are divided, as currently seems probable, will Hillary Clinton be able to form constructive working arrangements with some Republicans for the first time in years?

Not bad, just a nothing President who achieved nothing of value over his eight years. Indeed in that time gun violence, race relations and insurance premiums are worse than ever. He has let things slide domestically in a way that Clinton and Bush never did.

Incidentally, there was a gun/axe attack in Cologne a couple of days ago, but minimal coverage.

It's possible the new approach of downplaying terrorist attacks will cause a pissing contest to try and actually get media attention. If knives and axes won't do it, there's the potential for (unwittingly) the current media policy to encourage mass shootings and explosive/vehicle attacks.

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

True, there has been relatively little growth in the physical network. But it has been growing, unlike in BR times when it was constantly shrinking.

...

I only travelled on BR in the last decade of its existence, but I have little doubt that the current railway is much better for passenger comfort and convenience. As an example: Pacer trains are widely derided, but when they were introduced in the 1980s they were seen as being better than the first-generation DMUs they replaced.

(*) When the adjacent Broad Street station was sadly closed.

First paragraph is not quite fair JJ. Cannock was reconnected to the national network under BR, when the Chase line was promoted from freight only status. It wasn't common, but it happened.

Entirely agree with your second paragraph. BR's record in the provinces was absolutely dismal, especially in terms of punctuality, comfort and service. Things have improved enormously since privatisation. And it's not just where there is no alternative. The Cambrian lines are much more heavily used despite their remoteness and low speeds. In the 1980s you had a one car train every two hours from Mac along the lines. Now they are two car trains every hour, and they are well used.

Oh, indeed it happened. Willington station in South Derbyshire also reopened in late BR times, albeit that was on a passenger line. There was also an abortive first attempt at reopening the station at Corby in 1987, although BR closed it a few years later. It has since reopened again, and passenger numbers have doubled.

In fact, Corby's two reopenings are an indication of privatisation's success. BR could not make the station work. The private companies have.

But think of all the lines we lost, both passenger and freight.

Think of the lucky escape we had when the Settle and Carlisle was saved. The Woodhead line was not so lucky.

The Serpell report is also well worth studying. Imagine if that had gone through!

Having looked at it, it is hard to imagine railways could have survived at all. A classic accountant's mentality that assumed passengers went from station to station.

The Waverley route was a loss, but the worst was and remains the Great Central. If we still had that, we wouldn't be arguing over HS2 now. And if it hadn't been sold off for building we could just put it back.

Interesting comment in the Wikipedia entry that passenger numbers were picking up throughout the 80’s to a peak in 1988.
Was that the influence of the petrol/diesel price increases at that time?

Mr. 1000, assuming that's true, it highlights another problem with the cover-up/minimising coverage approach I didn't think of yesterday.

Every time there's a knife or gun attack, people will wonder if it's terrorism that's being covered up. That might lead to a larger than accurate picture forming in the public's mind when it comes to the threat/terrorist activity. One more reason we need to be able to trust the media/politicians/the police.

MaxPB said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'd be interested in hearing why those people in the minority think Barack Obama has been so bad. He seems to have been reasonably adequate to me, bearing in mind the very difficult circumstances in which he took office.

I'm cautiously hopeful that machine politician Hillary Clinton will be a machine politician president in the vein of LBJ. That wouldn't be too shabby.

In the event of a Trump defeat, how will the Republican party react? If they are divided, as currently seems probable, will Hillary Clinton be able to form constructive working arrangements with some Republicans for the first time in years?

Not bad, just a nothing President who achieved nothing of value over his eight years. Indeed in that time gun violence, race relations and insurance premiums are worse than ever. He has let things slide domestically in a way that Clinton and Bush never did.

Obama and his empty campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay - Still there after 8 yrs.

OldKingCole said:

Interesting comment in the Wikipedia entry that passenger numbers were picking up throughout the 80’s to a peak in 1988.
Was that the influence of the petrol/diesel price increases at that time?

The effect of Thatcherism, innit?

But seriously, probably down to the fact that BR management was given free reign from the early 1980s to manage themselves, and they came up with sectorisation. Network SouthEast was particularly successful.

However, I'd like to see the figures for that claim: my understanding was that any growth was very low, especialy in comparison to the doubling we've seen in the as twenty years. Figure 1 of (1) is illustrative:

(1) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/363718/rail-trends-factsheet-2014.pdf

SimonStClare said:

MaxPB said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'd be interested in hearing why those people in the minority think Barack Obama has been so bad. He seems to have been reasonably adequate to me, bearing in mind the very difficult circumstances in which he took office.

I'm cautiously hopeful that machine politician Hillary Clinton will be a machine politician president in the vein of LBJ. That wouldn't be too shabby.

In the event of a Trump defeat, how will the Republican party react? If they are divided, as currently seems probable, will Hillary Clinton be able to form constructive working arrangements with some Republicans for the first time in years?

Not bad, just a nothing President who achieved nothing of value over his eight years. Indeed in that time gun violence, race relations and insurance premiums are worse than ever. He has let things slide domestically in a way that Clinton and Bush never did.

Obama and his empty campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay - Still there after 8 yrs.

His first act as President was to sign the order closing it within 60 days, in front of the TV cameras.

Only then did he realise he didn't know what to do with the inmates.

Rather a metaphor for all his domestic reforms - extremely well-meaning, but not thought through at all.

Did PB/YouGov poll the entire readership of The Guardian?

I see July inflation is up.

Cancel Brexit and bring back Osborne.

Is the one month I need inflation to be down.