politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the third Thursday of May exactly a year ago Mrs May launch
Comments
-
Are a bunch of seedy betting shops better than no shops.... hmmmTGOHF said:Surely these terminals are the only thing keeping some betting shops viable.
I like a gamble but betting shops don't bring anything positive to a commercial/shopping area.
Gamble online on your sofa in your underpants like normal people..0 -
There's a stronger patrician strand that puts a hand on the shoulder and says "mate, you're being a twat...."SandyRentool said:So the Tory nanny state has decided that we can't be trusted to gamble £3.
Isn't there meant to be a Libertarian strand to the Conservatives?
Except when it comes to writing an Election Manifesto.0 -
I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.
https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=210 -
Sorry Mr Meeks but that's just wrong. They are not just viewed as ornamental. Many people who don't, or rarely, use the libraries know they are valuable to other people and the community in general (especially kids) and support them.AlastairMeeks said:
One in three has used a library in the last year for which we have statistics. For everyone else, they’re ornamental.HYUFD said:
People use Royal Mail for parcels and letters they still use and libraries are a vital tool for those who could not otherwise afford internet access etc, the jobless and elderly and for some young people the only peaceful place they can find yo do their homework as well as containing archives, local studies putting on talks and exhibitions and traditional book borrowing along now with dvdsAlastairMeeks said:
Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.Dura_Ace said:
I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance0 -
My argument is the high street betting shop is no longer desirable or sustainable.TOPPING said:
And @SandyRentool it's a tricky one. I am naturally against any "for their own good" legislation (chocolate oranges, anyone?) but it is undeniable that these machines can and do bring misery to a non-trivial percentage of users.TGOHF said:Surely these terminals are the only thing keeping some betting shops viable.
I like a gamble but betting shops don't bring anything positive to a commercial/shopping area.
Gamble online on your sofa in your underpants like normal people..
But as you note - can the 2.10 from Southwell (AW) maintain the high street betting industry? Not so sure.
0 -
Meh, in this case the social ills from these things well outweigh the personal freedoms people should enjoy.SandyRentool said:So the Tory nanny state has decided that we can't be trusted to gamble £3.
Isn't there meant to be a Libertarian strand to the Conservatives?
Nothing liberal about companies preying on addiction and low education.0 -
Such was my confusion after GE2017 that I asked my wife - who is much more politically neutral than me - what she thought.Sean_F said:
One commitment that gets overlooked, but which polling showed was very unpopular, was abolishing free school lunches? Why? The savings were, in the scheme of things, peanuts, but the proposal really upset parents.DavidL said:The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.
But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.
She asked some colleagues at work who were parents and that came up very strongly. They were totally unimpressed by free breakfasts as they viewed that as their quality time as a family first thing in the morning, but did expect the school to provide a lunch.0 -
As I said, people feel strongly about them but rarely use them. Like gym memberships or nutriblasts, they languish, loved.rottenborough said:
Sorry Mr Meeks but that's just wrong. They are not just viewed as ornamental. Many people who don't, or rarely, use the libraries know they are valuable to other people and the community in general (especially kids) and support them.AlastairMeeks said:
One in three has used a library in the last year for which we have statistics. For everyone else, they’re ornamental.HYUFD said:
People use Royal Mail for parcels and letters they still use and libraries are a vital tool for those who could not otherwise afford internet access etc, the jobless and elderly and for some young people the only peaceful place they can find yo do their homework as well as containing archives, local studies putting on talks and exhibitions and traditional book borrowing along now with dvdsAlastairMeeks said:
Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.Dura_Ace said:
I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance0 -
This is One Nation Toryism in action.SandyRentool said:So the Tory nanny state has decided that we can't be trusted to gamble £3.
Isn't there meant to be a Libertarian strand to the Conservatives?
When the Plebs are being exploited we step in.0 -
Why do you hate Britain so much TSE ?TheScreamingEagles said:I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.
https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=210 -
Time to water down free movement just yet(Just like the rumours last week)by the time everything is in place we seem to be heading for brexit in name only.HYUFD said:
No it does not, it completely disrespect the Leave vote to stay in the single market and keep free movement in place when immigration control was what got Leave a majority.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Topping, ha. No. Not leaving. Because when we voted to leave the EU that absolutely meant we were voting to have our trade dictated by the very organisation we'd voted not to be part of anymore.
It's indefensible. Even if you really love the EU and genuinely believe we're better off closer, it makes sense to be in the single market and out of the customs union, not the other way around.
It's wretched. I'll still vote Conservative as long as that far left lunatic is leader of Labour, but once he's gone, if we're in the customs union and there's no plan to change it, I'll be voting elsewhere/spoiling my ballot.
The Customs Union is just an obsession for a few Leave ideologues0 -
Quite - even here in rural Spain all bills, statements, taxes via email or online. The postal service as was 'no más existe '!AlastairMeeks said:
What envelopes?DecrepitJohnL said:
Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.AlastairMeeks said:
Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.Dura_Ace said:
I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/07/bloodysunday.northernireland
"Sinn Fein MP Martin McGuinness admitted he was the IRA gunman who sparked Bloody Sunday with a single shot, according to an informer, the Saville inquiry was told yesterday."
Luckily this MI5 spy is roasting in hell now.0 -
Do you have kids?AlastairMeeks said:
As I said, people feel strongly about them but rarely use them. Like gym memberships or nutriblasts, they languish, loved.rottenborough said:
Sorry Mr Meeks but that's just wrong. They are not just viewed as ornamental. Many people who don't, or rarely, use the libraries know they are valuable to other people and the community in general (especially kids) and support them.AlastairMeeks said:
One in three has used a library in the last year for which we have statistics. For everyone else, they’re ornamental.HYUFD said:
People use Royal Mail for parcels and letters they still use and libraries are a vital tool for those who could not otherwise afford internet access etc, the jobless and elderly and for some young people the only peaceful place they can find yo do their homework as well as containing archives, local studies putting on talks and exhibitions and traditional book borrowing along now with dvdsAlastairMeeks said:
Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.Dura_Ace said:
I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance0 -
I love Le Royaume-Uni.TGOHF said:
Why do you hate Britain so much TSE ?TheScreamingEagles said:I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.
https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21
A sign of a truly great nation is on the rare occasions her military commits an outrage truth and justice wins.
Bloody Sunday, The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, and the fall of Singapore are the British Army’s most infamous moments, we are right to call them out.0 -
If betting shops close it’ll leave a bit of a hole in some high streets locally. Whether or not that’s a good thing I’m not sure. One High Street in Priti Patel’s constituency could do with a decent coffee shop!TGOHF said:
My argument is the high street betting shop is no longer desirable or sustainable.TOPPING said:
And @SandyRentool it's a tricky one. I am naturally against any "for their own good" legislation (chocolate oranges, anyone?) but it is undeniable that these machines can and do bring misery to a non-trivial percentage of users.TGOHF said:Surely these terminals are the only thing keeping some betting shops viable.
I like a gamble but betting shops don't bring anything positive to a commercial/shopping area.
Gamble online on your sofa in your underpants like normal people..
But as you note - can the 2.10 from Southwell (AW) maintain the high street betting industry? Not so sure.0 -
Yes, a sensible piece. Why not give it a chance? It was successful in 09-15 when it was last nationalised. As a side point, even a majority Conservatives generally support nationalisation so it is hardly a niche left wing view.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance
https://youtu.be/-vY7U9rQI70
Here is one well known leftie calling for renationalisation...
0 -
Would the eventual abject surrender of the IRA happened sooner if not for Bloody Sunday ? We will never know.TheScreamingEagles said:
I love Le Royaume-Uni.TGOHF said:
Why do you hate Britain so much TSE ?TheScreamingEagles said:I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.
https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21
A sign of a truly great nation is on the rare occasions her military commits an outrage truth and justice wins.
Bloody Sunday, The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, and the fall of Singapore are the British Army’s most infamous moments, we are right to call them out.
ETA gave up in failure in the end but took a while - so it probably didn't make much difference in the end. These killers wanted to spill blood - we had to wait until they grew old and died.0 -
I think the Bentham principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number applies to a publicly funded good. Which then needs to be set against the cost of providing the service. So it could be a smaller part of the population deriving great value or a larger part deriving a smaller value. It's OK for a proportion to avoid the service, within a relatively modest financial budget, as long as others derive value from it. It would be a problem if only a small number were deriving marginal value.AlastairMeeks said:
Used in the last year. That doesn’t mean frequent use. I can’t find chapter and verse but I recall that it’s one in eight who visited in the last month.FF43 said:
I'm surprised as many as one in three use a library. It sounds like they might be a valuable resource for a large part of the population.AlastairMeeks said:
One in three has used a library in the last year for which we have statistics. For everyone else, they’re ornamental.HYUFD said:
People use Royal Mail for parcels and letters they still use and libraries are a vital tool for those who could not otherwise afford internet access etc, the jobless and elderly and for some young people the only peaceful place they can find yo do their homework as well as containing archives, local studies putting on talks and exhibitions and traditional book borrowing along now with dvdsAlastairMeeks said:
Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.Dura_Ace said:
I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance0 -
1) He denied itTGOHF said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/07/bloodysunday.northernireland
"Sinn Fein MP Martin McGuinness admitted he was the IRA gunman who sparked Bloody Sunday with a single shot, according to an informer, the Saville inquiry was told yesterday."
Luckily this MI5 spy is roasting in hell now.
2) Read the Savile Report. On the balance of probabilities the Paras fired the first shot.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0615/132183-bloodysunday/0 -
We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.TheScreamingEagles said:I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.
https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=210 -
Lolza.TheScreamingEagles said:
1) He denied itTGOHF said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/07/bloodysunday.northernireland
"Sinn Fein MP Martin McGuinness admitted he was the IRA gunman who sparked Bloody Sunday with a single shot, according to an informer, the Saville inquiry was told yesterday."
Luckily this MI5 spy is roasting in hell now.
Look all these 70s communist nationalist murder gangs have petered out all across Europe. They just can't get the recruits daft enough these days - a footnote in the grander scheme of history.
0 -
With the greatest of respect, your red line is very unrepresentative of the bulk of the people who voted Leave. This would be abundantly clear to anyone who canvassed for it door to door.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.
As others have pointed out, it took us 7 years to transition into the CU. The intensity of our EU trade is much higher than Commonwealth trade was before 1973, so we can’t afford to get it wrong.
Eurosceptics kept the flame burning for 41 years before June 2016. We should have a little more patience.0 -
Whatever happened to "all sides must stop violence" ... "there must be an independent inquiry" etc that is recited when it is the Russians/Venezuelans etc killing at an industrial scale?surby said:
We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.TheScreamingEagles said:I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.
https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=210 -
They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.surby said:
We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.TheScreamingEagles said:I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.
https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21
Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.0 -
It is in part a fair point and one I thought about making yesterday except it opens up a whole new can of worms. All I would say is that there is a clear difference between the Paras being actually in amongst the hostile crowds and failing to maintain their composure - something we rightly consider inexcusable - and the Israelis sitting behind wire and defences and picking people off through sniper scopes as a matter of state policy.TheScreamingEagles said:I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.
https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21
That is not to say the Paras should not be held to account but there is a significant difference of scale, premeditation and threat.0 -
Hmm. I keep a few lists on Twitter (History, Politics, F1 etc). From the F1 list, saw this:
https://twitter.com/SCynic1/status/9968568445713408000 -
The two situations (Gaza/Londonderry) are completely different. I doubt you want to spend the rest of the thread debating either, suffice to say that for the latter there was a lot of fog of war and who is to say there weren't shots fired, in what was in any case a febrile atmosphere with precedent for deadly outcomes if no action was taken (before and since) while the former is part of a quasi-existential struggle.TheScreamingEagles said:
1) He denied itTGOHF said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/07/bloodysunday.northernireland
"Sinn Fein MP Martin McGuinness admitted he was the IRA gunman who sparked Bloody Sunday with a single shot, according to an informer, the Saville inquiry was told yesterday."
Luckily this MI5 spy is roasting in hell now.
2) Read the Savile Report. On the balance of probabilities the Paras fired the first shot.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0615/132183-bloodysunday/0 -
Perhaps but going back not many years and it wasn't unusual to see a single betting shop on the high street not half a dozen. Now half the shops seem to be either charity shops or betting shops.OldKingCole said:
If betting shops close it’ll leave a bit of a hole in some high streets locally. Whether or not that’s a good thing I’m not sure. One High Street in Priti Patel’s constituency could do with a decent coffee shop!TGOHF said:
My argument is the high street betting shop is no longer desirable or sustainable.TOPPING said:
And @SandyRentool it's a tricky one. I am naturally against any "for their own good" legislation (chocolate oranges, anyone?) but it is undeniable that these machines can and do bring misery to a non-trivial percentage of users.TGOHF said:Surely these terminals are the only thing keeping some betting shops viable.
I like a gamble but betting shops don't bring anything positive to a commercial/shopping area.
Gamble online on your sofa in your underpants like normal people..
But as you note - can the 2.10 from Southwell (AW) maintain the high street betting industry? Not so sure.0 -
Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.TGOHF said:
They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.surby said:
We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.TheScreamingEagles said:I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.
https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21
Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.0 -
I've only just seen this comment as PB's still being odd.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance
Okay, there's one comment I'd like to make on this article (all AIUI):
The line: "The line has been run as a franchise by Stagecoach and Virgin since 2015, but unprofitably." lacks nuance. The line has been run profitably on operations, but they have not been able to cover the promised payments to the government, which increase every year.
The main reason for this is they were too optimistic in their projections, and this is their fault. However there is a complicating factor: Again AIUI, in the bidding documents NR said there would be enhancements to the ECML during the franchise, which would add more paths. If those works went ahead, and the paths went to the franchisee, they would make much more money. The franchisee bid on the basis of those works, which are not going ahead - and the DfT and NR say they were not guaranteed to go ahead.
If they had not bid with that assumption,and the works had gone ahead, they might not get the paths, and if they did, they would be accused of profiteering. And if a competing bidder assumed they were going ahead and bid more accordingly, then they would win the bid.
There is a real issue with certainty on the railways, and much of that is not down to the franchises, but the DfT and NR.
The real question will be, like-for-like, whether the DOR return more money to the government than the franchisees did before the payments ramped up.
0 -
Derry. Calling it Londonderry shows your colonialist imperialist mindset.TOPPING said:
The two situations (Gaza/Londonderry) are completely different. I doubt you want to spend the rest of the thread debating either, suffice to say that for the latter there was a lot of fog of war and who is to say there weren't shots fired, in what was in any case a febrile atmosphere with precedent for deadly outcomes if no action was taken (before and since) while the former is part of a quasi-existential struggle.TheScreamingEagles said:
1) He denied itTGOHF said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/07/bloodysunday.northernireland
"Sinn Fein MP Martin McGuinness admitted he was the IRA gunman who sparked Bloody Sunday with a single shot, according to an informer, the Saville inquiry was told yesterday."
Luckily this MI5 spy is roasting in hell now.
2) Read the Savile Report. On the balance of probabilities the Paras fired the first shot.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0615/132183-bloodysunday/0 -
As shown by the irrational warmth on here for libraries, it would be pointless to try to mess with them. It would be a policy like the dementia tax in the thread header, entirely sound in theory but electorally mad.FF43 said:
I think the Bentham principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number applies to a publicly funded good. Which then needs to be set against the cost of providing the service. So it could be a smaller part of the population deriving great value or a larger part deriving a smaller value. It's OK for a proportion to avoid the service, within a relatively modest financial budget, as long as others derive value from it. It would be a problem if only a small number were deriving marginal value.AlastairMeeks said:
Used in the last year. That doesn’t mean frequent use. I can’t find chapter and verse but I recall that it’s one in eight who visited in the last month.FF43 said:
I'm surprised as many as one in three use a library. It sounds like they might be a valuable resource for a large part of the population.0 -
Benedict Cumberbatch to play Dominic Cummings in new C4 Brexit drama
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/16/benedict-cumberbatch-to-play-vote-leave-dominic-cummings-channel-4-brexit-drama0 -
Mr. Blue, that's fine. I never claimed to speak for others.
A lengthy transition is one thing. Permanent chains are another.0 -
You would tie us to a one sided customs deal like Turkey. And we all know the aim is to keep us in permanently.RoyalBlue said:
With the greatest of respect, your red line is very unrepresentative of the bulk of the people who voted Leave. This would be abundantly clear to anyone who canvassed for it door to door.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.
As others have pointed out, it took us 7 years to transition into the CU. The intensity of our EU trade is much higher than Commonwealth trade was before 1973, so we can’t afford to get it wrong.
Eurosceptics kept the flame burning for 41 years before June 2016. We should have a little more patience.0 -
Subscribed and my oil team has promised to do the same...rcs1000 said:My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be
Please watch and subscribe
0 -
What if he does nothing? Lets the crowd storm the border, approach the Israeli border villages? What do you suppose would happen?Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.TGOHF said:
They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.surby said:
We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.TheScreamingEagles said:I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.
https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21
Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.
TSE mentioned NI - here's an analogy when inaction was the chosen route.0 -
Nope ending free movement is non negotiable for Tory voters, members and MPs and even Corbyn backs leaving the single marketTykejohnno said:
Time to water down free movement just yet(Just like the rumours last week)by the time everything is in place we seem to be heading for brexit in name only.HYUFD said:
No it does not, it completely disrespect the Leave vote to stay in the single market and keep free movement in place when immigration control was what got Leave a majority.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Topping, ha. No. Not leaving. Because when we voted to leave the EU that absolutely meant we were voting to have our trade dictated by the very organisation we'd voted not to be part of anymore.
It's indefensible. Even if you really love the EU and genuinely believe we're better off closer, it makes sense to be in the single market and out of the customs union, not the other way around.
It's wretched. I'll still vote Conservative as long as that far left lunatic is leader of Labour, but once he's gone, if we're in the customs union and there's no plan to change it, I'll be voting elsewhere/spoiling my ballot.
The Customs Union is just an obsession for a few Leave ideologues0 -
How can you be so sure that renationalising the franchises will be a success, when the part of the railway that is failing at the moment is Network Rail?Anazina said:
Yes, a sensible piece. Why not give it a chance? It was successful in 09-15 when it was last nationalised. As a side point, even a majority Conservatives generally support nationalisation so it is hardly a niche left wing view.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance
(Snip)
Here is one well known leftie calling for renationalisation...
And what would you do about the ROSCOs, Open Access, freight operators etc?
As far as I can tell, Labour's plans are not fully formed or workable - unless there is much they are not saying ...0 -
It was not the customs union on Vote Leave posters as much as it was new immigration controls principallyMorris_Dancer said:Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.
0 -
It's fairly clear that the average Conservative voter who cares about Brexit doesn't have that kind of patience, which means when it comes to the next election you have a problem. The best thing for the party would be if Brexit were heavily rejected in a second referendum.RoyalBlue said:
With the greatest of respect, your red line is very unrepresentative of the bulk of the people who voted Leave. This would be abundantly clear to anyone who canvassed for it door to door.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.
As others have pointed out, it took us 7 years to transition into the CU. The intensity of our EU trade is much higher than Commonwealth trade was before 1973, so we can’t afford to get it wrong.
Eurosceptics kept the flame burning for 41 years before June 2016. We should have a little more patience.0 -
Sorry, Morris_Dancer is completely correct. There is no sensible economic basis whatsoever for the UK to join the CU if it wants to leave the SM. It is, indeed, insane.RoyalBlue said:
With the greatest of respect, your red line is very unrepresentative of the bulk of the people who voted Leave. This would be abundantly clear to anyone who canvassed for it door to door.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.
As others have pointed out, it took us 7 years to transition into the CU. The intensity of our EU trade is much higher than Commonwealth trade was before 1973, so we can’t afford to get it wrong.
Eurosceptics kept the flame burning for 41 years before June 2016. We should have a little more patience.
The only reason that CU is being raised is that it would require the UK to align with SM regulations - it is a straw man for continued membership of the SM.0 -
Agree. We need freedom to negotiate that Tonga deal.archer101au said:
Sorry, Morris_Dancer is completely correct. There is no sensible economic basis whatsoever for the UK to join the CU if it wants to leave the SM. It is, indeed, insane.RoyalBlue said:
With the greatest of respect, your red line is very unrepresentative of the bulk of the people who voted Leave. This would be abundantly clear to anyone who canvassed for it door to door.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.
As others have pointed out, it took us 7 years to transition into the CU. The intensity of our EU trade is much higher than Commonwealth trade was before 1973, so we can’t afford to get it wrong.
Eurosceptics kept the flame burning for 41 years before June 2016. We should have a little more patience.
The only reason that CU is being raised is that it would require the UK to align with SM regulations - it is a straw man for continued membership of the SM.0 -
HYUFD said:
For those 1 in 3 they are often vital.AlastairMeeks said:
One in three has used a library in the last year for which we have statistics. For everyone else, they’re ornamental.HYUFD said:
People use Royal Mail for parcels and letters they still use and libraries are a vital tool for those who could not otherwise afford internet access etc, the jobless and elderly and for some young people the only peaceful place they can find yo do their homework as well as containing archives, local studies putting on talks and exhibitions and traditional book borrowing along now with dvdsAlastairMeeks said:
Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.Dura_Ace said:
I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance
As a millionaire lawyer living in central London I can understand they may be less so but for a pensioner or someone out of work living in a small market town they are a vital resource
0 -
Indeed it may do. Or, as they call it over in the Six Counties, democracy.TheScreamingEagles said:
Derry. Calling it Londonderry shows your colonialist imperialist mindset.TOPPING said:
The two situations (Gaza/Londonderry) are completely different. I doubt you want to spend the rest of the thread debating either, suffice to say that for the latter there was a lot of fog of war and who is to say there weren't shots fired, in what was in any case a febrile atmosphere with precedent for deadly outcomes if no action was taken (before and since) while the former is part of a quasi-existential struggle.TheScreamingEagles said:
1) He denied itTGOHF said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/07/bloodysunday.northernireland
"Sinn Fein MP Martin McGuinness admitted he was the IRA gunman who sparked Bloody Sunday with a single shot, according to an informer, the Saville inquiry was told yesterday."
Luckily this MI5 spy is roasting in hell now.
2) Read the Savile Report. On the balance of probabilities the Paras fired the first shot.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0615/132183-bloodysunday/0 -
Neither May nor Corbyn support continued membership of the SM post transition period, both now support staying in a CU though for a number of years.archer101au said:
Sorry, Morris_Dancer is completely correct. There is no sensible economic basis whatsoever for the UK to join the CU if it wants to leave the SM. It is, indeed, insane.RoyalBlue said:
With the greatest of respect, your red line is very unrepresentative of the bulk of the people who voted Leave. This would be abundantly clear to anyone who canvassed for it door to door.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.
As others have pointed out, it took us 7 years to transition into the CU. The intensity of our EU trade is much higher than Commonwealth trade was before 1973, so we can’t afford to get it wrong.
Eurosceptics kept the flame burning for 41 years before June 2016. We should have a little more patience.
The only reason that CU is being raised is that it would require the UK to align with SM regulations - it is a straw man for continued membership of the SM.
Only UKIP now want to leave the SM and CU straight away post Brexit and only the LDs want to stay permanently in the SM and CU. On Brexit both the Tory and Labour leadership are increasingly aligned0 -
It's not non-negotiable for this Tory voter. Are there any others out there, do you suppose, who you might not have canvassed personally?HYUFD said:
Nope ending free movement is non negotiable for Tory voters, members and MPs and even Corbyn backs leaving the single marketTykejohnno said:
Time to water down free movement just yet(Just like the rumours last week)by the time everything is in place we seem to be heading for brexit in name only.HYUFD said:
No it does not, it completely disrespect the Leave vote to stay in the single market and keep free movement in place when immigration control was what got Leave a majority.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Topping, ha. No. Not leaving. Because when we voted to leave the EU that absolutely meant we were voting to have our trade dictated by the very organisation we'd voted not to be part of anymore.
It's indefensible. Even if you really love the EU and genuinely believe we're better off closer, it makes sense to be in the single market and out of the customs union, not the other way around.
It's wretched. I'll still vote Conservative as long as that far left lunatic is leader of Labour, but once he's gone, if we're in the customs union and there's no plan to change it, I'll be voting elsewhere/spoiling my ballot.
The Customs Union is just an obsession for a few Leave ideologues0 -
HYUFDHYUFD said:
No it does not, it completely disrespect the Leave vote to stay in the single market and keep free movement in place when immigration control was what got Leave a majority.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Topping, ha. No. Not leaving. Because when we voted to leave the EU that absolutely meant we were voting to have our trade dictated by the very organisation we'd voted not to be part of anymore.
It's indefensible. Even if you really love the EU and genuinely believe we're better off closer, it makes sense to be in the single market and out of the customs union, not the other way around.
It's wretched. I'll still vote Conservative as long as that far left lunatic is leader of Labour, but once he's gone, if we're in the customs union and there's no plan to change it, I'll be voting elsewhere/spoiling my ballot.
The Customs Union is just an obsession for a few Leave ideologues
You are not getting this, are you? CU membership requires full alignment with SM regulations. At which point Barnier will say 'but you can't be in the SM and CU without accepting FOM - that would be cherry picking. Please bend over and take our new policy on FOM by another name.'
You must have set the World record for being 'on topic' on FOM. So, exactly what are your 'red lines' that define the end of FOM? When May comes up with free movement of labour instead, are you going to declare it completely different or will you accept that you have been had?0 -
And the Single Market is next. If we are outside the Single Market we still need that Irish border in some form that has been used as an excuse for us to stay in a CU. Once again it is salami tactics to negate Brexit.HYUFD said:
Neither May nor Corbyn support continued membership of the SM, both now support staying in a CU though for a number of yearsarcher101au said:
Sorry, Morris_Dancer is completely correct. There is no sensible economic basis whatsoever for the UK to join the CU if it wants to leave the SM. It is, indeed, insane.RoyalBlue said:
With the greatest of respect, your red line is very unrepresentative of the bulk of the people who voted Leave. This would be abundantly clear to anyone who canvassed for it door to door.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.
As others have pointed out, it took us 7 years to transition into the CU. The intensity of our EU trade is much higher than Commonwealth trade was before 1973, so we can’t afford to get it wrong.
Eurosceptics kept the flame burning for 41 years before June 2016. We should have a little more patience.
The only reason that CU is being raised is that it would require the UK to align with SM regulations - it is a straw man for continued membership of the SM.0 -
They should not let them storm the border. But using live ammunition should be a last resort. Tear gas, water cannon, plastic and rubber bullets are alternative forms of riot control. The Israelis could do what many European countries do, create a paramilitary police force that specialises in riot control.TOPPING said:
What if he does nothing? Lets the crowd storm the border, approach the Israeli border villages? What do you suppose would happen?Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.TGOHF said:
They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.surby said:
We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.TheScreamingEagles said:I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.
https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21
Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.
TSE mentioned NI - here's an analogy when inaction was the chosen route.0 -
ooooh...mad Brexiter fight, fight, fight...archer101au said:
HYUFDHYUFD said:
No it does not, it completely disrespect the Leave vote to stay in the single market and keep free movement in place when immigration control was what got Leave a majority.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Topping, ha. No. Not leaving. Because when we voted to leave the EU that absolutely meant we were voting to have our trade dictated by the very organisation we'd voted not to be part of anymore.
It's indefensible. Even if you really love the EU and genuinely believe we're better off closer, it makes sense to be in the single market and out of the customs union, not the other way around.
It's wretched. I'll still vote Conservative as long as that far left lunatic is leader of Labour, but once he's gone, if we're in the customs union and there's no plan to change it, I'll be voting elsewhere/spoiling my ballot.
The Customs Union is just an obsession for a few Leave ideologues
You are not getting this, are you? CU membership requires full alignment with SM regulations. At which point Barnier will say 'but you can't be in the SM and CU without accepting FOM - that would be cherry picking. Please bend over and take our new policy on FOM by another name.'
You must have set the World record for being 'on topic' on FOM. So, exactly what are your 'red lines' that define the end of FOM? When May comes up with free movement of labour instead, are you going to declare it completely different or will you accept that you have been had?0 -
Is rail usage now in decline nationally?JosiasJessop said:
How can you be so sure that renationalising the franchises will be a success, when the part of the railway that is failing at the moment is Network Rail?Anazina said:
Yes, a sensible piece. Why not give it a chance? It was successful in 09-15 when it was last nationalised. As a side point, even a majority Conservatives generally support nationalisation so it is hardly a niche left wing view.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance
(Snip)
Here is one well known leftie calling for renationalisation...
And what would you do about the ROSCOs, Open Access, freight operators etc?
As far as I can tell, Labour's plans are not fully formed or workable - unless there is much they are not saying ...
If so, is this (unexpected) decline in passenger numbers behind the East Coast franchise failure?
Certainly, numbers are down on the London network, creating a large deficit for TfL which they are responding to by deferring upgrades on the Northern and Victoria lines.0 -
When it comes to the 'special' people the normal rules don't apply.Philip_Thompson said:
Whatever happened to "all sides must stop violence" ... "there must be an independent inquiry" etc that is recited when it is the Russians/Venezuelans etc killing at an industrial scale?surby said:
We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.TheScreamingEagles said:I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.
https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=210 -
What they do is deal with protestors once they are actually at the border. Not when they are 700 yards away as they are doing at the moment.TOPPING said:
What if he does nothing? Lets the crowd storm the border, approach the Israeli border villages? What do you suppose would happen?Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.TGOHF said:
They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.surby said:
We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.TheScreamingEagles said:I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.
https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21
Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.
TSE mentioned NI - here's an analogy when inaction was the chosen route.
I am sure there would be uproar if the US took to shooting any Mexican who came within 700 yards of the border.0 -
You stop 50,000 people with water cannon and baton rounds? Have you ever been in a riot situation?Sean_F said:
They should not let them storm the border. But using live ammunition should be a last resort. Tear gas, water cannon, plastic and rubber bullets are alternative forms of riot control. The Israelis could do what many European countries do, create a paramilitary police force that specialises in riot control.TOPPING said:
What if he does nothing? Lets the crowd storm the border, approach the Israeli border villages? What do you suppose would happen?Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.TGOHF said:
They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.surby said:
We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.TheScreamingEagles said:I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.
https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21
Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.
TSE mentioned NI - here's an analogy when inaction was the chosen route.0 -
The point I and several others are making here is that the warmth for libraries isn't necessarily irrational*, although I admit I don't have the research to quantify the value they bring against the cost of supplying them.AlastairMeeks said:
As shown by the irrational warmth on here for libraries, it would be pointless to try to mess with them. It would be a policy like the dementia tax in the thread header, entirely sound in theory but electorally mad.FF43 said:
I think the Bentham principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number applies to a publicly funded good. Which then needs to be set against the cost of providing the service. So it could be a smaller part of the population deriving great value or a larger part deriving a smaller value. It's OK for a proportion to avoid the service, within a relatively modest financial budget, as long as others derive value from it. It would be a problem if only a small number were deriving marginal value.AlastairMeeks said:
Used in the last year. That doesn’t mean frequent use. I can’t find chapter and verse but I recall that it’s one in eight who visited in the last month.FF43 said:
I'm surprised as many as one in three use a library. It sounds like they might be a valuable resource for a large part of the population.
* I would also challenge "irrational" as a useful adjective for this discussion. I might very unusually derive great value from libraries, so my support is partial and biased, but it's entirely rational.0 -
Libraries in a connected world are an anachronism.AlastairMeeks said:
As shown by the irrational warmth on here for libraries, it would be pointless to try to mess with them. It would be a policy like the dementia tax in the thread header, entirely sound in theory but electorally mad.FF43 said:
I think the Bentham principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number applies to a publicly funded good. Which then needs to be set against the cost of providing the service. So it could be a smaller part of the population deriving great value or a larger part deriving a smaller value. It's OK for a proportion to avoid the service, within a relatively modest financial budget, as long as others derive value from it. It would be a problem if only a small number were deriving marginal value.AlastairMeeks said:
Used in the last year. That doesn’t mean frequent use. I can’t find chapter and verse but I recall that it’s one in eight who visited in the last month.FF43 said:
I'm surprised as many as one in three use a library. It sounds like they might be a valuable resource for a large part of the population.0 -
Jeez another armchair general - 50,000 protesters AT THE BORDER!!Richard_Tyndall said:
What they do is deal with protestors once they are actually at the border. Not when they are 700 yards away as they are doing at the moment.TOPPING said:
What if he does nothing? Lets the crowd storm the border, approach the Israeli border villages? What do you suppose would happen?Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.TGOHF said:
They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.surby said:
We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.TheScreamingEagles said:I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.
https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21
Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.
TSE mentioned NI - here's an analogy when inaction was the chosen route.
I am sure there would be uproar if the US took to shooting any Mexican who came within 700 yards of the border.
Oh, and are the Mexicans trying effectively to invade the USA? Nuh-huh.
Richard, read what you have written back and think about it.0 -
Agreed, but that’s a different problem. High Street rents are often high, as ae business rates. Charity shops of course pay reduced, or possibly no, business rates and neither, of course do they pay much f anything in the way of wages.Philip_Thompson said:
Perhaps but going back not many years and it wasn't unusual to see a single betting shop on the high street not half a dozen. Now half the shops seem to be either charity shops or betting shops.OldKingCole said:
If betting shops close it’ll leave a bit of a hole in some high streets locally. Whether or not that’s a good thing I’m not sure. One High Street in Priti Patel’s constituency could do with a decent coffee shop!TGOHF said:
My argument is the high street betting shop is no longer desirable or sustainable.TOPPING said:
And @SandyRentool it's a tricky one. I am naturally against any "for their own good" legislation (chocolate oranges, anyone?) but it is undeniable that these machines can and do bring misery to a non-trivial percentage of users.TGOHF said:Surely these terminals are the only thing keeping some betting shops viable.
I like a gamble but betting shops don't bring anything positive to a commercial/shopping area.
Gamble online on your sofa in your underpants like normal people..
But as you note - can the 2.10 from Southwell (AW) maintain the high street betting industry? Not so sure.
Betting shops aren’t the best payers of wages, I understand. Minimum wage or just above, and very often unsocial hours. However, with more trading online and at ‘out-of-town’ sites high street shops are suffering.
0 -
I too thought nobody used libraries anymore.AlastairMeeks said:
As shown by the irrational warmth on here for libraries, it would be pointless to try to mess with them. It would be a policy like the dementia tax in the thread header, entirely sound in theory but electorally mad.FF43 said:
I think the Bentham principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number applies to a publicly funded good. Which then needs to be set against the cost of providing the service. So it could be a smaller part of the population deriving great value or a larger part deriving a smaller value. It's OK for a proportion to avoid the service, within a relatively modest financial budget, as long as others derive value from it. It would be a problem if only a small number were deriving marginal value.AlastairMeeks said:
Used in the last year. That doesn’t mean frequent use. I can’t find chapter and verse but I recall that it’s one in eight who visited in the last month.FF43 said:
I'm surprised as many as one in three use a library. It sounds like they might be a valuable resource for a large part of the population.
And I assumed too that local authorities had turned them into underfunded ghettoes for asylum seekers and the unemployed.
Then I had a kid.
The library is a godsend, especially in winter. My local one seems to be very popular with parents of small children, teenagers studying, and various people who want a warm, dry place to read - and that’s probably most of us and one time or another in our lives.
I think they should form part of a national lifelong learning service.0 -
I had to consult the internet to find out what a nutriblast was. So, some sort of fancy blender.AlastairMeeks said:
As I said, people feel strongly about them but rarely use them. Like gym memberships or nutriblasts, they languish, loved.rottenborough said:
Sorry Mr Meeks but that's just wrong. They are not just viewed as ornamental. Many people who don't, or rarely, use the libraries know they are valuable to other people and the community in general (especially kids) and support them.AlastairMeeks said:
One in three has used a library in the last year for which we have statistics. For everyone else, they’re ornamental.HYUFD said:
People use Royal Mail for parcels and letters they still use and libraries are a vital tool for those who could not otherwise afford internet access etc, the jobless and elderly and for some young people the only peaceful place they can find yo do their homework as well as containing archives, local studies putting on talks and exhibitions and traditional book borrowing along now with dvdsAlastairMeeks said:
Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.Dura_Ace said:
I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance0 -
"Although 2016-17 represented the highest number of passenger journeys recorded sinceGardenwalker said:
Is rail usage now in decline nationally?JosiasJessop said:
How can you be so sure that renationalising the franchises will be a success, when the part of the railway that is failing at the moment is Network Rail?Anazina said:
Yes, a sensible piece. Why not give it a chance? It was successful in 09-15 when it was last nationalised. As a side point, even a majority Conservatives generally support nationalisation so it is hardly a niche left wing view.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance
(Snip)
Here is one well known leftie calling for renationalisation...
And what would you do about the ROSCOs, Open Access, freight operators etc?
As far as I can tell, Labour's plans are not fully formed or workable - unless there is much they are not saying ...
If so, is this (unexpected) decline in passenger numbers behind the East Coast franchise failure?
Certainly, numbers are down on the London network, creating a large deficit for TfL which they are responding to by deferring upgrades on the Northern and Victoria lines.
the time series began in 1950, year-on-year growth was at its lowest level since 2009-10
when passenger journeys fell by 0.7% "
"66 billion passenger kilometres were recorded on Great Britain’s rail network in 2016-17, with the growth in passenger kilometres slowing to 2.0%, mirroring the slowdown in growth seen in passenger journeys. "
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/26108/rail-statistics-compendium-2016-17.pdf
AIUI a problem has been not passenger journeys, but the ticket types, with season tickets decreasing markedly whilst other journeys have increased, decreasing revenue.0 -
"protesters"
The naivete of the West.
0 -
Does anyone have any demographic figures/trends for Israel and the occupied territories?
Is there going to be a time when the Palestinians will be able to say they don’t want their own state but rather have the one they are already in?0 -
-
Yes but FOM and being fully in the SM is still not the same as aligning to the Customs Union for a period to avoid an Irish hard border. Plus of course we are still entitled to significant free movement concessions anyway given Blair never took the transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 we were entitled tooarcher101au said:
HYUFDHYUFD said:
No it does not, it completely disrespect the Leave vote to stay in the single market and keep free movement in place when immigration control was what got Leave a majority.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Topping, ha. No. Not leaving. Because when we voted to leave the EU that absolutely meant we were voting to have our trade dictated by the very organisation we'd voted not to be part of anymore.
It's indefensible. Even if you really love the EU and genuinely believe we're better off closer, it makes sense to be in the single market and out of the customs union, not the other way around.
It's wretched. I'll still vote Conservative as long as that far left lunatic is leader of Labour, but once he's gone, if we're in the customs union and there's no plan to change it, I'll be voting elsewhere/spoiling my ballot.
The Customs Union is just an obsession for a few Leave ideologues
You are not getting this, are you? CU membership requires full alignment with SM regulations. At which point Barnier will say 'but you can't be in the SM and CU without accepting FOM - that would be cherry picking. Please bend over and take our new policy on FOM by another name.'
You must have set the World record for being 'on topic' on FOM. So, exactly what are your 'red lines' that define the end of FOM? When May comes up with free movement of labour instead, are you going to declare it completely different or will you accept that you have been had?0 -
-
Not so easy to play in a "big casino" vs popping out for a pint of milk and nipping into the bookies to spunk £500 on the FOBTs. So he is not completely being sensible.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Problem gamblers will always find a way to piss their money away, the issue is that FOBTs were, IMO, creating a generation of problem gamblers. People who would not otherwise have played casino games became addicted to them.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Shame to see a once esteemed thinktank stoop to this sort of nonsense - Spike lite.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
No it is not as neither May nor Corbyn back the single market and both are absolutely firm on that.Richard_Tyndall said:
And the Single Market is next. If we are outside the Single Market we still need that Irish border in some form that has been used as an excuse for us to stay in a CU. Once again it is salami tactics to negate Brexit.HYUFD said:
Neither May nor Corbyn support continued membership of the SM, both now support staying in a CU though for a number of yearsarcher101au said:
Sorry, Morris_Dancer is completely correct. There is no sensible economic basis whatsoever for the UK to join the CU if it wants to leave the SM. It is, indeed, insane.RoyalBlue said:
With the greatest of respect, your red line is very unrepresentative of the bulk of the people who voted Leave. This would be abundantly clear to anyone who canvassed for it door to door.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.
As others have pointed out, it took us 7 years to transition into the CU. The intensity of our EU trade is much higher than Commonwealth trade was before 1973, so we can’t afford to get it wrong.
Eurosceptics kept the flame burning for 41 years before June 2016. We should have a little more patience.
The only reason that CU is being raised is that it would require the UK to align with SM regulations - it is a straw man for continued membership of the SM.
Using alignment to the CU to negate an Irish hard border is all that is needed on that, neither will concede on the single market and especially not on ending free movement which is so vital to crucial working class Leave voters in marginal seats in the North and Midlands0 -
Thanks.TOPPING said:
Not so easy to play in a "big casino" vs popping out for a pint of milk and nipping into the bookies to spunk £500 on the FOBTs. So he is not completely being sensible.TheScreamingEagles said:
Also to Max and GardenWalker0 -
There is also the question of whether or not DOR will continue with the investment that the private operator were putting in. The last time the State were in charge they did absolutely nothing.JosiasJessop said:
I've only just seen this comment as PB's still being odd.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance
Okay, there's one comment I'd like to make on this article (all AIUI):
The line: "The line has been run as a franchise by Stagecoach and Virgin since 2015, but unprofitably." lacks nuance. The line has been run profitably on operations, but they have not been able to cover the promised payments to the government, which increase every year.
The main reason for this is they were too optimistic in their projections, and this is their fault. However there is a complicating factor: Again AIUI, in the bidding documents NR said there would be enhancements to the ECML during the franchise, which would add more paths. If those works went ahead, and the paths went to the franchisee, they would make much more money. The franchisee bid on the basis of those works, which are not going ahead - and the DfT and NR say they were not guaranteed to go ahead.
If they had not bid with that assumption,and the works had gone ahead, they might not get the paths, and if they did, they would be accused of profiteering. And if a competing bidder assumed they were going ahead and bid more accordingly, then they would win the bid.
There is a real issue with certainty on the railways, and much of that is not down to the franchises, but the DfT and NR.
The real question will be, like-for-like, whether the DOR return more money to the government than the franchisees did before the payments ramped up.0 -
Thinking about it, the greatest value of public libraries might be that they offer a space that is safe, out of the rain, wind and cold and which is free for as long as you want to use it. This has nothing to do with sources of knowledge, but vital in the absence of alternatives.0
-
-
Thanks. I wonder what’s causing that. It’s not greater casualisation of the workforce - the job stats don’t back that up.JosiasJessop said:
"Although 2016-17 represented the highest number of passenger journeys recorded sinceGardenwalker said:
Is rail usage now in decline nationally?JosiasJessop said:
How can you be so sure that renationalising the franchises will be a success, when the part of the railway that is failing at the moment is Network Rail?Anazina said:
Yes, a sensible piece. Why not give it a chance? It was successful in 09-15 when it was last nationalised. As a side point, even a majority Conservatives generally support nationalisation so it is hardly a niche left wing view.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance
(Snip)
Here is one well known leftie calling for renationalisation...
And what would you do about the ROSCOs, Open Access, freight operators etc?
As far as I can tell, Labour's plans are not fully formed or workable - unless there is much they are not saying ...
If so, is this (unexpected) decline in passenger numbers behind the East Coast franchise failure?
Certainly, numbers are down on the London network, creating a large deficit for TfL which they are responding to by deferring upgrades on the Northern and Victoria lines.
the time series began in 1950, year-on-year growth was at its lowest level since 2009-10
when passenger journeys fell by 0.7% "
"66 billion passenger kilometres were recorded on Great Britain’s rail network in 2016-17, with the growth in passenger kilometres slowing to 2.0%, mirroring the slowdown in growth seen in passenger journeys. "
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/26108/rail-statistics-compendium-2016-17.pdf
AIUI a problem has been not passenger journeys, but the ticket types, with season tickets decreasing markedly whilst other journeys have increased, decreasing revenue.
Maybe season tickets just too expensive on one hand and rise in partial homeworking on the other.0 -
As an unabashed free marketeer who would in an ideal world privatise the NHS and schools I’m having a crisis of faith about privastising the railways.
It isn’t working but I know nationalisation isn’t the answer but what is?0 -
Exactly, we've created 3 or 4 big money casinos on every high street. I'm not sure that this argument holds up to scrutiny.TOPPING said:
Not so easy to play in a "big casino" vs popping out for a pint of milk and nipping into the bookies to spunk £500 on the FOBTs. So he is not completely being sensible.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Don't casinos have a 24hr waiting time after you apply to join ?MaxPB said:
Problem gamblers will always find a way to piss their money away, the issue is that FOBTs were, IMO, creating a generation of problem gamblers. People who would not otherwise have played casino games became addicted to them.TheScreamingEagles said:
0 -
I agree. I sometimes pop into Enfield Library at lunchtime, and it's always full of schoolchildren.Gardenwalker said:
I too thought nobody used libraries anymore.AlastairMeeks said:
As shown by the irrational warmth on here for libraries, it would be pointless to try to mess with them. It would be a policy like the dementia tax in the thread header, entirely sound in theory but electorally mad.FF43 said:
I think the Bentham principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number applies to a publicly funded good. Which then needs to be set against the cost of providing the service. So it could be a smaller part of the population deriving great value or a larger part deriving a smaller value. It's OK for a proportion to avoid the service, within a relatively modest financial budget, as long as others derive value from it. It would be a problem if only a small number were deriving marginal value.AlastairMeeks said:
Used in the last year. That doesn’t mean frequent use. I can’t find chapter and verse but I recall that it’s one in eight who visited in the last month.FF43 said:
I'm surprised as many as one in three use a library. It sounds like they might be a valuable resource for a large part of the population.
And I assumed too that local authorities had turned them into underfunded ghettoes for asylum seekers and the unemployed.
Then I had a kid.
The library is a godsend, especially in winter. My local one seems to be very popular with parents of small children, teenagers studying, and various people who want a warm, dry place to read - and that’s probably most of us and one time or another in our lives.
I think they should form part of a national lifelong learning service.0 -
Nope. Virgin say it is because the promised investment by Network Rail which they were promised which would have allowed growth of the business was not forthcoming. Now personally I think they basic problem is they bid way too low but it is also the case that Network Rai - the main publicly owned bit of the system - are indeed the cause of many of the issues for the rail operators.Gardenwalker said:
Is rail usage now in decline nationally?JosiasJessop said:
How can you be so sure that renationalising the franchises will be a success, when the part of the railway that is failing at the moment is Network Rail?Anazina said:
Yes, a sensible piece. Why not give it a chance? It was successful in 09-15 when it was last nationalised. As a side point, even a majority Conservatives generally support nationalisation so it is hardly a niche left wing view.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance
(Snip)
Here is one well known leftie calling for renationalisation...
And what would you do about the ROSCOs, Open Access, freight operators etc?
As far as I can tell, Labour's plans are not fully formed or workable - unless there is much they are not saying ...
If so, is this (unexpected) decline in passenger numbers behind the East Coast franchise failure?
Certainly, numbers are down on the London network, creating a large deficit for TfL which they are responding to by deferring upgrades on the Northern and Victoria lines.0 -
That is exactly right. The Dementia tax was good policy but poor politics. The manifesto should have given a hard commitment on increasing the legacy allowance to £100k and then given promised to consult on "measures to harmonise the financial burden placed on those with different forms of ongoing care".Casino_Royale said:
I think such reforms can be done but they need to be heavily trailed and tested first, and public support slowly built.DavidL said:The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.
But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.
If you try and bounce them on the voters during an election campaign, they will smell a rat and vote accordingly.
That could have led to a White Paper in the first year of the parliament and allowed for proposals to be tweaked in response to the consultation without it looking like headless-chicken syndrome, which it inevitably does in the hot-house of an election campaign. The new system could have been introduced around 2019 giving people time to get used to it before the next GE.
But no, a couple of policy wonks thought they knew political campaigning better than Lynton Crosby does.0 -
Why isn’t nationalisation *an* answer?TheScreamingEagles said:As an unabashed free marketeer who would in an ideal world privatise the NHS and schools I’m having a crisis of faith about privastising the railways.
It isn’t working but I know nationalisation isn’t the answer but what is?
It’s 2018. The idea that the market works best in every instance died ten years ago.0 -
Thanks @JosiasJessop and for your earlier post, which put the missing piece of the puzzle into play (ie they bid on the assumption of future revenue flows which then did not materialise).JosiasJessop said:
"Although 2016-17 represented the highest number of passenger journeys recorded sinceGardenwalker said:
Is rail usage now in decline nationally?JosiasJessop said:
How can you be so sure that renationalising the franchises will be a success, when the part of the railway that is failing at the moment is Network Rail?Anazina said:
Yes, a sensible piece. Why not give it a chance? It was successful in 09-15 when it was last nationalised. As a side point, even a majority Conservatives generally support nationalisation so it is hardly a niche left wing view.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance
(Snip)
Here is one well known leftie calling for renationalisation...
And what would you do about the ROSCOs, Open Access, freight operators etc?
As far as I can tell, Labour's plans are not fully formed or workable - unless there is much they are not saying ...
If so, is this (unexpected) decline in passenger numbers behind the East Coast franchise failure?
Certainly, numbers are down on the London network, creating a large deficit for TfL which they are responding to by deferring upgrades on the Northern and Victoria lines.
the time series began in 1950, year-on-year growth was at its lowest level since 2009-10
when passenger journeys fell by 0.7% "
"66 billion passenger kilometres were recorded on Great Britain’s rail network in 2016-17, with the growth in passenger kilometres slowing to 2.0%, mirroring the slowdown in growth seen in passenger journeys. "
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/26108/rail-statistics-compendium-2016-17.pdf
AIUI a problem has been not passenger journeys, but the ticket types, with season tickets decreasing markedly whilst other journeys have increased, decreasing revenue.
Otherwise it made no sense them suddenly handing back/forfeiting the franchise.0 -
Also, comparisons to the National Lottery are completely fatuous, very few people walk into Sainsbury's and get 250 entries per day.0
-
I'd be interested to see a study into concessions rather than franchises: there are some already, for instance London Overground, DLR, Merseyrail. It seems to me that it might solve a few of the issues with the current system (although it may introduce a few more...)TheScreamingEagles said:As an unabashed free marketeer who would in an ideal world privatise the NHS and schools I’m having a crisis of faith about privastising the railways.
It isn’t working but I know nationalisation isn’t the answer but what is?0 -
The problem of FOBTs is three-fold.TheScreamingEagles said:
1) high profits mean bookies do not need to take normal bets where they might lose.
2) for those who become addicted, or just trapped, it is possible to lose thousands of pounds a minute using a maximum stake of £200 a spin.
3) they suck money out of local economies.
On the plus side, they are handy for money laundering and keep people in jobs.0 -
Because I used the trains when it was British Rail, I remember.Gardenwalker said:
Why isn’t nationalisation *an* answer?TheScreamingEagles said:As an unabashed free marketeer who would in an ideal world privatise the NHS and schools I’m having a crisis of faith about privastising the railways.
It isn’t working but I know nationalisation isn’t the answer but what is?
It’s 2018. The idea that the market works best in every instance died ten years ago.0 -
The Dementia Tax was a bad policy and bad politics, sneeking it out mid Parliament would not work either, see the Poll Taxdavid_herdson said:
That is exactly right. The Dementia tax was good policy but poor politics. The manifesto should have given a hard commitment on increasing the legacy allowance to £100k and then given promised to consult on "measures to harmonise the financial burden placed on those with different forms of ongoing care".Casino_Royale said:
I think such reforms can be done but they need to be heavily trailed and tested first, and public support slowly built.DavidL said:The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.
But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.
If you try and bounce them on the voters during an election campaign, they will smell a rat and vote accordingly.
That could have led to a White Paper in the first year of the parliament and allowed for proposals to be tweaked in response to the consultation without it looking like headless-chicken syndrome, which it inevitably does in the hot-house of an election campaign. The new system could have been introduced around 2019 giving people time to get used to it before the next GE.
But no, a couple of policy wonks thought they knew political campaigning better than Lynton Crosby does.0 -
Morning all
Interesting news on the FOBTs and the limit. Hancock has always been in the £2 camp but the bookmaker shave plenty of "friends" on the Conservative benches but in truth with the DUP publicly in favour of the £2 limit the Parliamentary numbers had gone for the bookmakers (another unintended consequence of the "dementia tax" proposal).
This will wipe out the good news from the US from earlier in the week and now we wait to see if the dire warnings of widespread betting shop closures and job losses are anything more than "Project Fear" from the bookmakers.
Two questions come from this - first, what about online casinos ? In many ways, it's a more insidious form of gambling as it can be done more privately. Second, what about the funding of horse racing which is derived from bookmaker turnover and profit? The sad truth for racing is no one bets on it in shops any more (at least not the way they once did) and the online bookmakers such as Sky Bet are the ones moving forward.
Philosophically, I'm glad to see the addiction of gambling being taken seriously at last. It blights lives and families as effectively as alcoholism and drug addiction and while I appreciate the libertarian viewpoint, the results of gambling addiction go far beyond the individual and his/her family. Culturally, it's an addiction which needs recognising.
It's where my demons lurk but we even have two or three casino-style shops beyond the betting shops here in East Ham so for the hardened gambler closing down the FOBT option is an inconvenience at worst. Tackling online gambling and even Lottery scratch-cards would be a stronger signal this interventionist Government was taking a meaningful stand.0 -
If they do not concede on the SM then the whole debate over the CU with regard to the Irish border is pointless.HYUFD said:
No it is not as neither May nor Corbyn back the single market and both are absolutely firm on that.Richard_Tyndall said:
And the Single Market is next. If we are outside the Single Market we still need that Irish border in some form that has been used as an excuse for us to stay in a CU. Once again it is salami tactics to negate Brexit.HYUFD said:
Neither May nor Corbyn support continued membership of the SM, both now support staying in a CU though for a number of yearsarcher101au said:
Sorry, Morris_Dancer is completely correct. There is no sensible economic basis whatsoever for the UK to join the CU if it wants to leave the SM. It is, indeed, insane.RoyalBlue said:
With the greatest of respect, your red line is very unrepresentative of the bulk of the people who voted Leave. This would be abundantly clear to anyone who canvassed for it door to door.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.
As others have pointed out, it took us 7 years to transition into the CU. The intensity of our EU trade is much higher than Commonwealth trade was before 1973, so we can’t afford to get it wrong.
Eurosceptics kept the flame burning for 41 years before June 2016. We should have a little more patience.
The only reason that CU is being raised is that it would require the UK to align with SM regulations - it is a straw man for continued membership of the SM.
Using alignment to the CU to negate an Irish hard border is all that is needed on that, neither will concede on the single market and especially not on ending free movement which is so vital to crucial working class Leave voters in marginal seats in the North and Midlands0 -
0
-
Think tanks should be transparent about who funds them.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Hmmm. Who to side with? Virgin or Network Rail?Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. Virgin say it is because the promised investment by Network Rail which they were promised which would have allowed growth of the business was not forthcoming. Now personally I think they basic problem is they bid way too low but it is also the case that Network Rai - the main publicly owned bit of the system - are indeed the cause of many of the issues for the rail operators.Gardenwalker said:
Is rail usage now in decline nationally?JosiasJessop said:
How can you be so sure that renationalising the franchises will be a success, when the part of the railway that is failing at the moment is Network Rail?Anazina said:
Yes, a sensible piece. Why not give it a chance? It was successful in 09-15 when it was last nationalised. As a side point, even a majority Conservatives generally support nationalisation so it is hardly a niche left wing view.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance
(Snip)
Here is one well known leftie calling for renationalisation...
And what would you do about the ROSCOs, Open Access, freight operators etc?
As far as I can tell, Labour's plans are not fully formed or workable - unless there is much they are not saying ...
If so, is this (unexpected) decline in passenger numbers behind the East Coast franchise failure?
Certainly, numbers are down on the London network, creating a large deficit for TfL which they are responding to by deferring upgrades on the Northern and Victoria lines.0 -
It might also be why the government is not fining them or banning them from future bids (I think!) - it might just end up in court as some of the failure can be put down to the way the DfT handled the bidding process.TOPPING said:
Thanks @JosiasJessop and for your earlier post, which put the missing piece of the puzzle into play (ie they bid on the assumption of future revenue flows which then did not materialise).JosiasJessop said:
"Although 2016-17 represented the highest number of passenger journeys recorded sinceGardenwalker said:
Is rail usage now in decline nationally?JosiasJessop said:
How can you be so sure that renationalising the franchises will be a success, when the part of the railway that is failing at the moment is Network Rail?Anazina said:
Yes, a sensible piece. Why not give it a chance? It was successful in 09-15 when it was last nationalised. As a side point, even a majority Conservatives generally support nationalisation so it is hardly a niche left wing view.NickPalmer said:We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance
(Snip)
Here is one well known leftie calling for renationalisation...
And what would you do about the ROSCOs, Open Access, freight operators etc?
As far as I can tell, Labour's plans are not fully formed or workable - unless there is much they are not saying ...
If so, is this (unexpected) decline in passenger numbers behind the East Coast franchise failure?
Certainly, numbers are down on the London network, creating a large deficit for TfL which they are responding to by deferring upgrades on the Northern and Victoria lines.
the time series began in 1950, year-on-year growth was at its lowest level since 2009-10
when passenger journeys fell by 0.7% "
"66 billion passenger kilometres were recorded on Great Britain’s rail network in 2016-17, with the growth in passenger kilometres slowing to 2.0%, mirroring the slowdown in growth seen in passenger journeys. "
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/26108/rail-statistics-compendium-2016-17.pdf
AIUI a problem has been not passenger journeys, but the ticket types, with season tickets decreasing markedly whilst other journeys have increased, decreasing revenue.
Otherwise it made no sense them suddenly handing back/forfeiting the franchise.
But to make it clear: IMO they were too optimistic, even leaving aside the issue with the upgrades.0 -
I'll go back to what I wrote yesterday, we need to treat railways the same as we treat air travel. Give major stations "landing slots" which are then sold to rail operators who run the trains to arrive in those slots. It would allow direct competition between railway operators on the same piece of track just as EasyJet compete for my money if I want to fly to Spain. Over time the odd time slots will sell for less than the peak time slots which will allow for budget railway companies to come in and offer low prices.TheScreamingEagles said:As an unabashed free marketeer who would in an ideal world privatise the NHS and schools I’m having a crisis of faith about privastising the railways.
It isn’t working but I know nationalisation isn’t the answer but what is?
If that can't be achieved then we should look at the Swiss railways model and just nationalise the whole lot.0 -
Plug for Kieran Pedley and Leo Barasi for their interesting PB/Polling Matters podcast on the previous thread. I can take a while to get to these longer audio segments so the thread moves on before I get a chance to listen to it. This podcast tackled the paradox that we are supposedly going through a political shift at the moment, yet retention rates for the parties are very high. You would expect to see a state of flux. Voters are highly motivated by antipathy for the other party and much less by support for their own party.
Well worth a listen.0 -
I remember too, and my experience was mixed, but the basic problem was that the Government ran it on the cheap. The correct answer to that is to use it as a reason to vote in a different government, not to change the system into a mess run by temporary monopolists answerable to nobody.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because I used the trains when it was British Rail, I remember.Gardenwalker said:
Why isn’t nationalisation *an* answer?TheScreamingEagles said:As an unabashed free marketeer who would in an ideal world privatise the NHS and schools I’m having a crisis of faith about privastising the railways.
It isn’t working but I know nationalisation isn’t the answer but what is?
It’s 2018. The idea that the market works best in every instance died ten years ago.0 -
I am going to challenge you to explain this:HYUFD said:
Yes but FOM and being fully in the SM is still not the same as aligning to the Customs Union for a period to avoid an Irish hard border. Plus of course we are still entitled to significant free movement concessions anyway given Blair never took the transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 we were entitled tooarcher101au said:
HYUFDHYUFD said:
No it does not, it completely disrespect the Leave vote to stay in the single market and keep free movement in place when immigration control was what got Leave a majority.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Topping, ha. No. Not leaving. Because when we voted to leave the EU that absolutely meant we were voting to have our trade dictated by the very organisation we'd voted not to be part of anymore.
It's indefensible. Even if you really love the EU and genuinely believe we're better off closer, it makes sense to be in the single market and out of the customs union, not the other way around.
It's wretched. I'll still vote Conservative as long as that far left lunatic is leader of Labour, but once he's gone, if we're in the customs union and there's no plan to change it, I'll be voting elsewhere/spoiling my ballot.
The Customs Union is just an obsession for a few Leave ideologues
You are not getting this, are you? CU membership requires full alignment with SM regulations. At which point Barnier will say 'but you can't be in the SM and CU without accepting FOM - that would be cherry picking. Please bend over and take our new policy on FOM by another name.'
You must have set the World record for being 'on topic' on FOM. So, exactly what are your 'red lines' that define the end of FOM? When May comes up with free movement of labour instead, are you going to declare it completely different or will you accept that you have been had?
- How does CU membership without regulatory alignment with the SM avoid the need for border checks at all in NI? If regulations are not aligned, you still need border checks of some sort because you cannot stop non-compliant products circulating in the market.
- If we are aligned with SM regulations and in the CU, what is the difference between that and formally remaining in the SM?
- What are your red line on FOM - you didn't answer that.0
