The LDs step up the tactical squeeze on LAB voters in Devon – politicalbetting.com

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.

Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.

If its not the former whats the point of Labour

Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.

Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.

*Which of course he is.

Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1538771495522078721?s=20&t=JsNNZFf22vjq8PgHbCpHew

Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”

Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.

It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)

He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia

There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back

We want it all back, but it's not happening anytime soon, one of the reasons it is hard to be anything other than pessimistic about the country's prospects right now. There will be at least two general elections before anything other than incremental improvements in our relationship with the EU is on the cards. Realistically, we probably need another ten years of Leavers dying* and the economic costs of leaving mounting before Labour will risk putting EEA to the electorate.

* just demographic reality - I am not being morbid or taking any pleasure in it, before someone gets huffy.

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.

Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.

If its not the former whats the point of Labour

Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.

Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.

*Which of course he is.

Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1538771495522078721?s=20&t=JsNNZFf22vjq8PgHbCpHew

Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”

Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.

It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)

He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia

There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back

Not for me it ain't. Possibly the most extreme Europhile on PB and for me it's dead, gone mate, deaceased, to be no more.

Let's forget it. They wouldn't have us back anyway, and who should blame them?

To return is to join the euro. This would be an economic disaster. We should have nothing to do with it.

As a Remainer I would vote no to rejoining if that was the consequence.

I’m not talking about rejoining the EU!

We are talking about what Starmer said. Ruling out the SM and CU

Looks like Theresa May might have the last laugh after all. If Starmer wins the next general election Brexit will end up looking much like her ditched deal rather than Boris' even harder line deal or the EEA deal Remainers wanted

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.

Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.

If its not the former whats the point of Labour

Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.

Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.

*Which of course he is.

Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1538771495522078721?s=20&t=JsNNZFf22vjq8PgHbCpHew

Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”

Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.

It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)

He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia

There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back

Strategically to get elected it is vital for him.

He cannot become PM without winning back the redwall and he will not win back the redwall without ruling out free movement/EEA.

The LDs might make some extra gains in Remain seats if they become the only main UK wide party backing EEA but the LDs would back Starmer over Johnson as PM anyway

But this could lose Labour a bunch of seats in big cities. Especially london

Have we done this wee policy from Spain. Pee in the sea and be fined. Enforcement technique as yet unidentified.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/world-news/957130/swimmers-face-ps645-fine-for-peeing-in-the-sea

Don't go to Weego.

I'd have thought they need this more on the Mediterranean coast.

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.

Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.

If its not the former whats the point of Labour

Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.

Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.

*Which of course he is.

Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1538771495522078721?s=20&t=JsNNZFf22vjq8PgHbCpHew

Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”

Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.

It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)

He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia

There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back

Strategically to get elected it is vital for him.

He cannot become PM without winning back the redwall and he will not win back the redwall without ruling out free movement/EEA.

The LDs might make some extra gains in Remain seats if they become the only main UK wide party backing EEA but the LDs would back Starmer over Johnson as PM anyway

But this could lose Labour a bunch of seats in big cities. Especially london

To whom - come election day who would your typical London Labour voter vote for - they ain't going to vote for Bozo...

The problem with the triple lock is not the concept but the application which leads to an unintended ratcheting up of pensions relative to everything else in the long term.
Cumulative pensions since the lock began should be linked to the higher of cumulative prices and cumulative earnings,and never fall in an individual year. Basing the inrease on the highest in each individual year willi inevitably lead to pensions outpacing earnings significantly in times of volatility. If the triple lock was maintained for long enough in its current form then a pensioner would earn more than the average wage.

eek said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.

Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.

If its not the former whats the point of Labour

Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.

Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.

*Which of course he is.

Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1538771495522078721?s=20&t=JsNNZFf22vjq8PgHbCpHew

Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”

Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.

It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)

He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia

There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back

Strategically to get elected it is vital for him.

He cannot become PM without winning back the redwall and he will not win back the redwall without ruling out free movement/EEA.

The LDs might make some extra gains in Remain seats if they become the only main UK wide party backing EEA but the LDs would back Starmer over Johnson as PM anyway

But this could lose Labour a bunch of seats in big cities. Especially london

To whom - come election day who would your typical London Labour voter vote for - they ain't going to vote for Bozo...

To the LDs obvs

Stark_Dawning said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.

Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.

If its not the former whats the point of Labour

Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.

Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.

*Which of course he is.

Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1538771495522078721?s=20&t=JsNNZFf22vjq8PgHbCpHew

Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”

Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.

It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)

He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia

There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back

I think you're vastly overestimating the degree to which Remainers want to hand to Boris on a plate the opportunity to reignite the Brexit wars.

Yes, I think a removal of the red tape at the Irish Sea and Channel through closer trade and regulatory alignment is the plan for the next GE. EU/EEA Rejoining is for a bit further down the line.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

StuartDickson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

One point made by a colleague.

If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.

What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦‍♂️

The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.

Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.

Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc

Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.

HS2 is a white elephant.
Always was. Always will be.

Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.

For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.

How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?

100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.

Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.

100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.

1 train = 2 drivers.

Indeed.

Fundamentally, the advantage of railways is a much lower coefficient of friction, as well as a resilient trackbed: they can carry far heavier loads for long distances for limited outlays of energy without chewing up the road service and with only a couple of members of staff.

When you add on top how regulated and signalled they are they are much safer too.

Absolutely fantastic for the days when the economy operated by needing tonnes of the same good like coal, going to the same destination, like the coal power plant.

Not so good for the modern economy. But that doesn't suit the agenda some people have to push.

Where do you think the hard core for your motorways comes from? Your Crossrail? Construction in London and the HC? Clue: there is precious little hard rock in the HC.

Have a look at the quarry materials flows. Merehead limestone, for instance.

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

As I said, if you want to shift large volumes of the same good along the same route, then absolutely rail can be great. There's a time and a place for rail.

But the problem is, post-coal, that its not as much, and not as often. Whereas roads, especially in the age of goods getting more complicated and smaller, are stretched well past their capacity.

Adding more rail routes is tinkering at the edges of freight capacity, because most freight doesn't want to be moved by rail. Adding more motorways would be truly transformative.

Not really - most freight is distributed via a hub and spoke system. Delivery to the hubs can be done via rail with lorries doing the last x miles...

And unless I'm missing something the one problem that still hasn't been solved in the post carbon future is fuelling of Lorries...

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.

Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.

If its not the former whats the point of Labour

Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.

Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.

*Which of course he is.

Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1538771495522078721?s=20&t=JsNNZFf22vjq8PgHbCpHew

Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”

Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.

It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)

He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia

There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back

Not for me it ain't. Possibly the most extreme Europhile on PB and for me it's dead, gone mate, deaceased, to be no more.

Let's forget it. They wouldn't have us back anyway, and who should blame them?

To return is to join the euro. This would be an economic disaster. We should have nothing to do with it.

As a Remainer I would vote no to rejoining if that was the consequence.

I’m not talking about rejoining the EU!

We are talking about what Starmer said. Ruling out the SM and CU

Depends on what kind of sophistry we want to employ:
I cannot see how we rejoin the EEA. Via EFTA? Do they want us? But we could create a bilateral trading agreement with the EEA which encompasses the UK within it so that we can enjoy the same economic benefits as NI has.
I cannot see how we rejoin the ECU. But we can create *a* customs union agreement with the ECU which draws us into it.

People should be used to this by now. We had to leave the EU to stop Turks coming here via their non-membership of the EU. But could then have *a* ECU deal like non-EU member Turkey once we left.

Benpointer said:

Something very strange and troubling seems to have happened in 2016 according to this FT graph:

Have they demonstrated that the assumed trend happened everywhere else? Otherwise not really relevant.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

StuartDickson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

One point made by a colleague.

If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.

What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦‍♂️

The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.

Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.

Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc

Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.

HS2 is a white elephant.
Always was. Always will be.

Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.

For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.

How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?

100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.

Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.

100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.

1 train = 2 drivers.

Indeed.

Fundamentally, the advantage of railways is a much lower coefficient of friction, as well as a resilient trackbed: they can carry far heavier loads for long distances for limited outlays of energy without chewing up the road service and with only a couple of members of staff.

When you add on top how regulated and signalled they are they are much safer too.

Absolutely fantastic for the days when the economy operated by needing tonnes of the same good like coal, going to the same destination, like the coal power plant.

Not so good for the modern economy. But that doesn't suit the agenda some people have to push.

Where do you think the hard core for your motorways comes from? Your Crossrail? Construction in London and the HC? Clue: there is precious little hard rock in the HC.

Have a look at the quarry materials flows. Merehead limestone, for instance.

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

As I said, if you want to shift large volumes of the same good along the same route, then absolutely rail can be great. There's a time and a place for rail.

But the problem is, post-coal, that its not as much, and not as often. Whereas roads, especially in the age of goods getting more complicated and smaller, are stretched well past their capacity.

Adding more rail routes is tinkering at the edges of freight capacity, because most freight doesn't want to be moved by rail. Adding more motorways would be truly transformative.

There’s room for both, but getting goods traffic off roads and onto trains can be useful in reducing overall traffic on the motorways.

For example, if containers landed at Southampton and Felixstowe could be moved by rail to a terminal somewhere around, say, East Midlands Airport, then picked up by lorry for local delivery, this would get thousands of lorries off the road network.

This is the sort of thing enabled by HS2, as it creates more paths for slower freight trains by getting faster passenger trains off the existing main lines.

You are right on your point about motorways being neglected though, there needs to be investment in renewing and widening, with particular attention to bottlenecks in the system.

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

StuartDickson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

One point made by a colleague.

If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.

What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦‍♂️

The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.

Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.

Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc

Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.

HS2 is a white elephant.
Always was. Always will be.

Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.

For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.

How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?

100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.

Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.

100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.

1 train = 2 drivers.

Indeed.

Fundamentally, the advantage of railways is a much lower coefficient of friction, as well as a resilient trackbed: they can carry far heavier loads for long distances for limited outlays of energy without chewing up the road service and with only a couple of members of staff.

When you add on top how regulated and signalled they are they are much safer too.

Absolutely fantastic for the days when the economy operated by needing tonnes of the same good like coal, going to the same destination, like the coal power plant.

Not so good for the modern economy. But that doesn't suit the agenda some people have to push.

Where do you think the hard core for your motorways comes from? Your Crossrail? Construction in London and the HC? Clue: there is precious little hard rock in the HC.

Have a look at the quarry materials flows. Merehead limestone, for instance.

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

As I said, if you want to shift large volumes of the same good along the same route, then absolutely rail can be great. There's a time and a place for rail.

But the problem is, post-coal, that its not as much, and not as often. Whereas roads, especially in the age of goods getting more complicated and smaller, are stretched well past their capacity.

Adding more rail routes is tinkering at the edges of freight capacity, because most freight doesn't want to be moved by rail. Adding more motorways would be truly transformative.

Not really - most freight is distributed via a hub and spoke system. Delivery to the hubs can be done via rail with lorries doing the last x miles...

And unless I'm missing something the one problem that still hasn't been solved in the post carbon future is fuelling of Lorries...

England is not a large country, for much of the country all the trade being done is the last x miles.

If the capacity demand for freight is there, why is freight rail falling as a share of freight, rather than rising? Why are motorways the ones stretched to triple the capacity they were designed for?

If motorways were idle and empty then sure, no reason to invest in more, but its just not the case.

Nigel_Foremain said:

bigjohnowls said:

Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.

Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.

If its not the former whats the point of Labour

Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.

Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.

*Which of course he is.

Sensible politics. Only idiots, Marxists and closet Marxists support this strike. Everyone is going to have to accept a drop in living standards for the time being, so why should certain segments of the population that are prepared to bully the rest of the population be immune?. Strikes are not going to help anyone, although I am sure Vladimir will be delighted his apologist union bosses are causing disruption in the UK .

I don’t “support the strikes” but I support the right to strike. Surely we all must do that, otherwise let’s just ban unions. My overriding view on rail sector unions is “I wish mine was that effective at looking after me”.

MattW said:

Have we done this wee policy from Spain. Pee in the sea and be fined. Enforcement technique as yet unidentified.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/world-news/957130/swimmers-face-ps645-fine-for-peeing-in-the-sea

Don't go to Weego.

I'd have thought they need this more on the Mediterranean coast.

Reflecting on this the best solution to the problem is probably to introduce Candiru, if available in a salt water version.

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

StuartDickson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

One point made by a colleague.

If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.

What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦‍♂️

The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.

Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.

Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc

Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.

HS2 is a white elephant.
Always was. Always will be.

Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.

For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.

How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?

100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.

Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.

100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.

1 train = 2 drivers.

Indeed.

Fundamentally, the advantage of railways is a much lower coefficient of friction, as well as a resilient trackbed: they can carry far heavier loads for long distances for limited outlays of energy without chewing up the road service and with only a couple of members of staff.

When you add on top how regulated and signalled they are they are much safer too.

Absolutely fantastic for the days when the economy operated by needing tonnes of the same good like coal, going to the same destination, like the coal power plant.

Not so good for the modern economy. But that doesn't suit the agenda some people have to push.

Where do you think the hard core for your motorways comes from? Your Crossrail? Construction in London and the HC? Clue: there is precious little hard rock in the HC.

Have a look at the quarry materials flows. Merehead limestone, for instance.

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

As I said, if you want to shift large volumes of the same good along the same route, then absolutely rail can be great. There's a time and a place for rail.

But the problem is, post-coal, that its not as much, and not as often. Whereas roads, especially in the age of goods getting more complicated and smaller, are stretched well past their capacity.

Adding more rail routes is tinkering at the edges of freight capacity, because most freight doesn't want to be moved by rail. Adding more motorways would be truly transformative.

There’s room for both, but getting goods traffic off roads and onto trains can be useful in reducing overall traffic on the motorways.

For example, if containers landed at Southampton and Felixstowe could be moved by rail to a terminal somewhere around, say, East Midlands Airport, then picked up by lorry for local delivery, this would get thousands of lorries off the road network.

This is the sort of thing enabled by HS2, as it creates more paths for slower freight trains by getting faster passenger trains off the existing main lines.

You are right on your point about motorways being neglected though, there needs to be investment in renewing and widening, with particular attention to bottlenecks in the system.

You're absolutely right that thousands of lorries could be dealt with that way.

But when stretches of motorway are dealing with hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, that is pissing in the wind.

We need both. We should be investing in capacity for motorways, which are well past capacity and more capacity is needed - and investing in capacity in rail where it is needed. Capacity in rail is not a magical fix for capacity in roads, it won't even make a dent in the roads congestion.

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

StuartDickson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

One point made by a colleague.

If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.

What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦‍♂️

The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.

Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.

Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc

Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.

HS2 is a white elephant.
Always was. Always will be.

Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.

For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.

How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?

100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.

Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.

100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.

1 train = 2 drivers.

Indeed.

Fundamentally, the advantage of railways is a much lower coefficient of friction, as well as a resilient trackbed: they can carry far heavier loads for long distances for limited outlays of energy without chewing up the road service and with only a couple of members of staff.

When you add on top how regulated and signalled they are they are much safer too.

Absolutely fantastic for the days when the economy operated by needing tonnes of the same good like coal, going to the same destination, like the coal power plant.

Not so good for the modern economy. But that doesn't suit the agenda some people have to push.

Where do you think the hard core for your motorways comes from? Your Crossrail? Construction in London and the HC? Clue: there is precious little hard rock in the HC.

Have a look at the quarry materials flows. Merehead limestone, for instance.

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

As I said, if you want to shift large volumes of the same good along the same route, then absolutely rail can be great. There's a time and a place for rail.

But the problem is, post-coal, that its not as much, and not as often. Whereas roads, especially in the age of goods getting more complicated and smaller, are stretched well past their capacity.

Adding more rail routes is tinkering at the edges of freight capacity, because most freight doesn't want to be moved by rail. Adding more motorways would be truly transformative.

Not really - most freight is distributed via a hub and spoke system. Delivery to the hubs can be done via rail with lorries doing the last x miles...

And unless I'm missing something the one problem that still hasn't been solved in the post carbon future is fuelling of Lorries...

England is not a large country, for much of the country all the trade being done is the last x miles.

If the capacity demand for freight is there, why is freight rail falling as a share of freight, rather than rising? Why are motorways the ones stretched to triple the capacity they were designed for?

If motorways were idle and empty then sure, no reason to invest in more, but its just not the case.

The capacity isn't there at the moment - Moving the fast trains to HS2 is how the capacity is added to the WCML...

.

ping said:

Off topic

Excellent podcast from Bari Weiss, just released;

“Is crypto over? A debate”

Well worth an hour or so of your time, imo.

https://www.honestlypod.com/podcast/episode/247cc6c3/is-crypto-over-a-debate

Can't you just tell us 'yes' or 'no' ?

Nigel_Foremain said:

biggles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

bigjohnowls said:

Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.

Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.

If its not the former whats the point of Labour

Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.

Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.

*Which of course he is.

Sensible politics. Only idiots, Marxists and closet Marxists support this strike. Everyone is going to have to accept a drop in living standards for the time being, so why should certain segments of the population that are prepared to bully the rest of the population be immune?. Strikes are not going to help anyone, although I am sure Vladimir will be delighted his apologist union bosses are causing disruption in the UK .

I don’t “support the strikes” but I support the right to strike. Surely we all must do that, otherwise let’s just ban unions. My overriding view on rail sector unions is “I wish mine was that effective at looking after me”.

I support the right to strike, but that doesn't mean one should not criticise them when they happen. The big problem with many unions is that they are still run by dinosaurs who think that their primary purpose is to show their machismo. They are still largely dominated by the far left, and they need to be called out for what they are.

Perhaps. But the train unions seem to be have mostly succeeded in looking after their members’ interests, which is their job. Not necessarily the same thing as the national interest, but they are paid by the members. In that sense, they are objectively better than many peers.

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.

Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.

If its not the former whats the point of Labour

Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.

Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.

*Which of course he is.

Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1538771495522078721?s=20&t=JsNNZFf22vjq8PgHbCpHew

Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”

Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.

It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)

He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia

There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back

Not for me it ain't. Possibly the most extreme Europhile on PB and for me it's dead, gone mate, deaceased, to be no more.

Let's forget it. They wouldn't have us back anyway, and who should blame them?

To return is to join the euro. This would be an economic disaster. We should have nothing to do with it.

As a Remainer I would vote no to rejoining if that was the consequence.

I’m not talking about rejoining the EU!

We are talking about what Starmer said. Ruling out the SM and CU

Looks like Theresa May might have the last laugh after all. If Starmer wins the next general election Brexit will end up looking much like her ditched deal rather than Boris' even harder line deal or the EEA deal Remainers wanted

A CU won’t be possible without lots of work to unlock various other trade deals, and a lot of EU good will whilst the opposition is saying “we’d immediately reverse it”. It won’t happen.

It would also come at an eye-wateringly expensive annual cost. Not much less than full EU membership would be my guess.

I've been out, did we do this?
Welsh Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 41% (-)
CON: 26% (-)
PC: 16% (+3)
LDEM: 7% (-)

via @YouGov, 12 - 16 Jun
Chgs. w/ Mar
https://t.co/DIILimlvOa

wooliedyed said:

I've been out, did we do this?
Welsh Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 41% (-)
CON: 26% (-)
PC: 16% (+3)
LDEM: 7% (-)

via @YouGov, 12 - 16 Jun
Chgs. w/ Mar
https://t.co/DIILimlvOa

Labour failing to make further ground, Con falling back from 2019 in line with national picture

Stark_Dawning said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.

Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.

If its not the former whats the point of Labour

Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.

Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.

*Which of course he is.

Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1538771495522078721?s=20&t=JsNNZFf22vjq8PgHbCpHew

Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”

Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.

It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)

He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia

There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back

I think you're vastly overestimating the degree to which Remainers want to hand to Boris on a plate the opportunity to reignite the Brexit wars.

Indeed. Leon pontificating on the views of 'Remainers' align neatly with Leon pontificating about France. He is largely ignorant of both.

For what it's worth, I only ever see 'Remainers' and 'Leavers' on PB – most of the country has long since moved on, since Brexit divided many if not most families and was therefore a painful episode that millions want to forget.

As for FOM, I don't see it retuning in the medium term. What might happen is a more liberal visa system to help fill acute labour shortages in London and its ilk, which would be up to the UK government and would not require EEA membership.

Also points out that after about a week anger with Unions turns on to the government for doing bugger all about it.

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

StuartDickson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

One point made by a colleague.

If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.

What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦‍♂️

The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.

Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.

Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc

Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.

HS2 is a white elephant.
Always was. Always will be.

Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.

For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.

How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?

100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.

Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.

100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.

1 train = 2 drivers.

Indeed.

Fundamentally, the advantage of railways is a much lower coefficient of friction, as well as a resilient trackbed: they can carry far heavier loads for long distances for limited outlays of energy without chewing up the road service and with only a couple of members of staff.

When you add on top how regulated and signalled they are they are much safer too.

Absolutely fantastic for the days when the economy operated by needing tonnes of the same good like coal, going to the same destination, like the coal power plant.

Not so good for the modern economy. But that doesn't suit the agenda some people have to push.

Where do you think the hard core for your motorways comes from? Your Crossrail? Construction in London and the HC? Clue: there is precious little hard rock in the HC.

Have a look at the quarry materials flows. Merehead limestone, for instance.

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

As I said, if you want to shift large volumes of the same good along the same route, then absolutely rail can be great. There's a time and a place for rail.

But the problem is, post-coal, that its not as much, and not as often. Whereas roads, especially in the age of goods getting more complicated and smaller, are stretched well past their capacity.

Adding more rail routes is tinkering at the edges of freight capacity, because most freight doesn't want to be moved by rail. Adding more motorways would be truly transformative.

Not really - most freight is distributed via a hub and spoke system. Delivery to the hubs can be done via rail with lorries doing the last x miles...

And unless I'm missing something the one problem that still hasn't been solved in the post carbon future is fuelling of Lorries...

England is not a large country, for much of the country all the trade being done is the last x miles.

If the capacity demand for freight is there, why is freight rail falling as a share of freight, rather than rising? Why are motorways the ones stretched to triple the capacity they were designed for?

If motorways were idle and empty then sure, no reason to invest in more, but its just not the case.

The capacity isn't there at the moment - Moving the fast trains to HS2 is how the capacity is added to the WCML...

The capacity was there in the past, and yet the share of freight being moved by rail has gone consistently down, and down, and down as we eliminated coal.

It is the road network which is bursting to capacity at hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day per stretch, not hundreds or thousands of them.

You may not have noticed this but train passenger numbers doubled from 2000 to 2019 - and that was done by adding more passenger trains to the network.

NickPalmer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Morris_Dancer said:

This is demented, if true. You can't give pensioners a 10% pension hike then tell the people paying for it to accept way less:
https://twitter.com/JosephineCumbo/status/1539165889785999360

Its definitely true.

Links to the Parliamentary answer to the question of Triple Lock restoration.

I get the Pension next year but think its a disgrace its going up more than triple the rate being offered by HMG to railworkers nurses teachers and many others.

My suggestion of linking Pensions to Public Sector Pay backdated to 2010 would result in a 17% cut rather than a 10% rise

Yes - also, although it's a populist gesture, I think (and argued when in Parliament) that MP pay should bear a fixed relationship to average incomes (could be double or even triple, but fixed). That way, if things go splendidly, they share in the bounty, and if they vote for a squeeze, they share in the squeeze.

I rather like the Yes Minister wheeze of fixing then to a civil service pay band. Could be teachers/NHS etc. but makes them “feel” a squeeze quite directly.

biggles said:

wooliedyed said:

I've been out, did we do this?
Welsh Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 41% (-)
CON: 26% (-)
PC: 16% (+3)
LDEM: 7% (-)

via @YouGov, 12 - 16 Jun
Chgs. w/ Mar
https://t.co/DIILimlvOa

The 10% “other” seems noteworthy. How much Reform/UKIP/abolish the assembly?

No tables yet but Reform and Green i'd guess, residual kipperism strong in Wales but not actual kippers. Abolish, Gwlad and UKIP might get 1 or 2 between them, reform and green 4 each?

Nigelb said:

biggles said:

Benpointer said:

Something very strange and troubling seems to have happened in 2016 according to this FT graph:

Would want a longer time series and the equivalents for our rivals before I concluded anything.

Still somewhat disturbing given the super capital allowances Sunak brought in to give business investment a shot of adrenaline.

It just hasn't had much effect, and it ought to have done.

Irrespective of leave/remain and any Brexit impact in there, I think this links to our productive issues. Long term investment has always been our weakness and I think we need to do something fundamental around corporate governance and shareholder incentives.

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

StuartDickson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

One point made by a colleague.

If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.

What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦‍♂️

The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.

Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.

Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc

Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.

HS2 is a white elephant.
Always was. Always will be.

Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.

For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.

How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?

100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.

Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.

100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.

1 train = 2 drivers.

Indeed.

Fundamentally, the advantage of railways is a much lower coefficient of friction, as well as a resilient trackbed: they can carry far heavier loads for long distances for limited outlays of energy without chewing up the road service and with only a couple of members of staff.

When you add on top how regulated and signalled they are they are much safer too.

Absolutely fantastic for the days when the economy operated by needing tonnes of the same good like coal, going to the same destination, like the coal power plant.

Not so good for the modern economy. But that doesn't suit the agenda some people have to push.

Where do you think the hard core for your motorways comes from? Your Crossrail? Construction in London and the HC? Clue: there is precious little hard rock in the HC.

Have a look at the quarry materials flows. Merehead limestone, for instance.

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

As I said, if you want to shift large volumes of the same good along the same route, then absolutely rail can be great. There's a time and a place for rail.

But the problem is, post-coal, that its not as much, and not as often. Whereas roads, especially in the age of goods getting more complicated and smaller, are stretched well past their capacity.

Adding more rail routes is tinkering at the edges of freight capacity, because most freight doesn't want to be moved by rail. Adding more motorways would be truly transformative.

Not really - most freight is distributed via a hub and spoke system. Delivery to the hubs can be done via rail with lorries doing the last x miles...

And unless I'm missing something the one problem that still hasn't been solved in the post carbon future is fuelling of Lorries...

England is not a large country, for much of the country all the trade being done is the last x miles.

If the capacity demand for freight is there, why is freight rail falling as a share of freight, rather than rising? Why are motorways the ones stretched to triple the capacity they were designed for?

If motorways were idle and empty then sure, no reason to invest in more, but its just not the case.

The capacity isn't there at the moment - Moving the fast trains to HS2 is how the capacity is added to the WCML...

The capacity was there in the past, and yet the share of freight being moved by rail has gone consistently down, and down, and down as we eliminated coal.

It is the road network which is bursting to capacity at hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day per stretch, not hundreds or thousands of them.

You may not have noticed this but train passenger numbers doubled from 2000 to 2019 - and that was done by adding more passenger trains to the network.

I have noticed, which was a pretty inconsequential dent in overall passenger traffic, since over 80% of overall passenger traffic remains via road and not rail. You might also notice the population rose in that time as well.

Meanwhile what happened to motorway traffic in the same time? It went up in both freight and passengers, while the rails doubled in one yet halved in the other.

The simple reality is that roads are a far more useful investment, yet are neglected for purely ideological rather than economic reasons. If you're looking at capacity, then instead of a new WCML I'd be looking at a new M6 and M1 etc as alternatives to the existing ones, with different routes and that would double capacity for both freight and passengers by road which is the overwhelming proportion of both freight and passengers moved in this country.

Ken Clarke also says austerity lasted too long.
And points out he's been personally given £1100 in cost of living grants.

HYUFD said:

biggles said:

NickPalmer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Morris_Dancer said:

This is demented, if true. You can't give pensioners a 10% pension hike then tell the people paying for it to accept way less:
https://twitter.com/JosephineCumbo/status/1539165889785999360

Its definitely true.

Links to the Parliamentary answer to the question of Triple Lock restoration.

I get the Pension next year but think its a disgrace its going up more than triple the rate being offered by HMG to railworkers nurses teachers and many others.

My suggestion of linking Pensions to Public Sector Pay backdated to 2010 would result in a 17% cut rather than a 10% rise

Yes - also, although it's a populist gesture, I think (and argued when in Parliament) that MP pay should bear a fixed relationship to average incomes (could be double or even triple, but fixed). That way, if things go splendidly, they share in the bounty, and if they vote for a squeeze, they share in the squeeze.

I rather like the Yes Minister wheeze of fixing then to a civil service pay band. Could be teachers/NHS etc. but makes them “feel” a squeeze quite directly.

Good idea, MPs are public sector workers after all, not private sector

The other thing I’ve wondered about in the past is giving them a larger staff allowance to manage constituency work, but then cutting salaries and positively encouraging second jobs to inform their life experience. Parliament would need to sit less often, but the quality of what we got might improve.

dixiedean said:

Ken Clarke also says austerity lasted too long.
And points out he's been personally given £1100 in cost of living grants.

That’s a lot of cigars and whisky.

Nigelb said:

.

ping said:

Off topic

Excellent podcast from Bari Weiss, just released;

“Is crypto over? A debate”

Well worth an hour or so of your time, imo.

https://www.honestlypod.com/podcast/episode/247cc6c3/is-crypto-over-a-debate

Can't you just tell us 'yes' or 'no' ?

I guess the answer is 'no', for as long as there are grifters and marks willing to part with their cash. There *is* a kernel of truthfulness and utility to cryptocurrency, but that makes it all the more appealing as a gimmick for the con artists.

NFTs seem to be running their course though.

The rebound in gross fixed capital formation looks more positive.

Nigel_Foremain said:

bigjohnowls said:

Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.

Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.

If its not the former whats the point of Labour

Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.

Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.

*Which of course he is.

Sensible politics. Only idiots, Marxists and closet Marxists support this strike.

Have you seen a Poll?

Even GB News reporter on the ground had to admit most people were sympathetic

I see at least one idiot opposes the strike and thinks that the 89% of railway workers are Marxists. or closet Marxists.

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

biggles said:

NickPalmer said:

bigjohnowls said:

Morris_Dancer said:

This is demented, if true. You can't give pensioners a 10% pension hike then tell the people paying for it to accept way less:
https://twitter.com/JosephineCumbo/status/1539165889785999360

Its definitely true.

Links to the Parliamentary answer to the question of Triple Lock restoration.

I get the Pension next year but think its a disgrace its going up more than triple the rate being offered by HMG to railworkers nurses teachers and many others.

My suggestion of linking Pensions to Public Sector Pay backdated to 2010 would result in a 17% cut rather than a 10% rise

Yes - also, although it's a populist gesture, I think (and argued when in Parliament) that MP pay should bear a fixed relationship to average incomes (could be double or even triple, but fixed). That way, if things go splendidly, they share in the bounty, and if they vote for a squeeze, they share in the squeeze.

I rather like the Yes Minister wheeze of fixing then to a civil service pay band. Could be teachers/NHS etc. but makes them “feel” a squeeze quite directly.

Good idea, MPs are public sector workers after all, not private sector

The other thing I’ve wondered about in the past is giving them a larger staff allowance to manage constituency work, but then cutting salaries and positively encouraging second jobs to inform their life experience. Parliament would need to sit less often, but the quality of what we got might improve.

That would be good, if the MPs’ second jobs were unrelated to their role as MPs.

The problem is that so many MPs now are ‘Political Professionals”, who went straight from university into politics and have never had a job in the real world. They’d end up working in London as lobbyists or advisors on huge salaries, rather than get more of an understanding of their constituents. Just look at the jobs done now by former MPs.

Checking in to say the government are wankers and don't know how to run the country

Emergency legislation against strikers -
1. Strike days must be consecutive, none of this five days of disruption for three days of strikes.
2. Strike pay loss to be calculated as 1/232 not 1/365. Also reduce employer pension contributions by 1/232.
3. Make incentivising strikes with pay over and above lost income illegal.
4. Accelerate automation of key infrastructure and dilute the pool of eligible workers by simplifying the remaining jobs.

1-3 can be done immediately with primary legislation, if that means the whole public sector goes on strike then so be it, they are doing it anyway so it won't make any difference. If the wankers want to strike then make it hurt.

MattW said:

Benpointer said:

Something very strange and troubling seems to have happened in 2016 according to this FT graph:

Have they demonstrated that the assumed trend happened everywhere else? Otherwise not really relevant.

The UK business investment performance since the Brexit vote has been the weakest of the G7. Pre Brexit it was growing more strongly than most other G7 countries, having fallen the most after the GFC. The performance since 2016 been really bad, both compared to our peers and our prior performance.

MaxPB said:

Checking in to say the government are wankers and don't know how to run the country

Emergency legislation against strikers -
1. Strike days must be consecutive, none of this five days of disruption for three days of strikes.
2. Strike pay loss to be calculated as 1/232 not 1/365. Also reduce employer pension contributions by 1/232.
3. Make incentivising strikes with pay over and above lost income illegal.
4. Accelerate automation of key infrastructure and dilute the pool of eligible workers by simplifying the remaining jobs.

1-3 can be done immediately with primary legislation, if that means the whole public sector goes on strike then so be it, they are doing it anyway so it won't make any difference. If the wankers want to strike then make it hurt.

2 would muck around with lots of other pay definitions in law.

3 is not a thing you could legislate for. How can you stop one person/organisation giving another cash?

If the WCML is at capacity then a new line may make sense.

The M1 and M6 absolutely are at capacity, and I believe carry an order of magnitude more than the WCML. So a new M1 and M6 absolutely ought to make sense, using the same logic.

I wonder how much a new M1 and M6 would cost, versus HS2. And what the capacity of the existing and a new M1 and M6 (supplementing the existing M1 and M6, albeit probably on a somewhat different route) would be versus the capacity of HS2/WCML.

Why should we build a new HS2 to relieve pressure on the WCML, but not build a new M1 or M6? And I don't mean the M6 Toll, a tiny little road, I mean full thing, from the South to past Preston at least, where the capacity is regularly past what it was built for already. If not all the way to Scotland.

And like was said about HS2, if you're building a new line, may as well build it to best modern standards. So a new M1 and M6 could be built with modern digital standards from the start, safety investment for lay-bys etc and have 4 or 5 lanes each way from the start for the entire route. Supplementing of course the existing motorway network, because new roads all the way.

dixiedean said:

Ken Clarke also says austerity lasted too long.
And points out he's been personally given £1100 in cost of living grants.

KC is right about a lot of things.

He was a much better Health Secretary than Alun Milburn

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.

Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.

If its not the former whats the point of Labour

Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.

Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.

*Which of course he is.

Starmer also going to make a speech at which he will rule out a Labour government bringing back free movement with the EU as he further shifts to reassure 2019 Tory voters thinking of making the move to Labour next time

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1538771495522078721?s=20&t=JsNNZFf22vjq8PgHbCpHew

Hmmm. EEA and even a CU are going to be closed off by the main parties over the next few years then. Will be interesting to see if the LibDems can have any joy doubling down on being the “reverse UKIP”

Ruling out EEA membership is stupid. Ruling out CU membership is very sensible.

It seems like a strategic error from Starmer (unless he is lying - highly possible)

He may or may not bring back the Red Wall but he is giving up on all of Remainia

There is a huge opportunity here for the Lib Dems. For millions of people Brexit is still THE issue especially FoM. Remainers want it back

Strategically to get elected it is vital for him.

He cannot become PM without winning back the redwall and he will not win back the redwall without ruling out free movement/EEA.

The LDs might make some extra gains in Remain seats if they become the only main UK wide party backing EEA but the LDs would back Starmer over Johnson as PM anyway

But this could lose Labour a bunch of seats in big cities. Especially london

Yes but LD MPs in Remain seats would still back Starmer over Johnson as PM. Tory MPs in redwall seats wouldn't.

This policy confirms Starmer has given up on a Labour majority, he is just focused on becoming PM in a hung parliament with LD as well as Labour support

Though without Scotland, that was always pretty likely.

As for the Eurostuff, it was always likely that 2024-9 was going to be about (try to) "make Brexit work by diluting it a bit". And then a bit more and a bit more.

I know it's awfully bad manners for the government to try to launch another Brexit war and the rest of us not turn up, but sometimes the best thing to do is sit and wait.

MaxPB said:

Checking in to say the government are wankers and don't know how to run the country

Emergency legislation against strikers -
1. Strike days must be consecutive, none of this five days of disruption for three days of strikes.
2. Strike pay loss to be calculated as 1/232 not 1/365. Also reduce employer pension contributions by 1/232.
3. Make incentivising strikes with pay over and above lost income illegal.
4. Accelerate automation of key infrastructure and dilute the pool of eligible workers by simplifying the remaining jobs.

1-3 can be done immediately with primary legislation, if that means the whole public sector goes on strike then so be it, they are doing it anyway so it won't make any difference. If the wankers want to strike then make it hurt.

How does 4 work? I will point out https://www.londonreconnections.com/2021/the-political-myth-of-the-driverless-tube-train/ and the fact that a lot of the public sector is well ahead of elsewhere on robotic process and other automation...

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

StuartDickson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

One point made by a colleague.

If the government can afford to pay billions for HS2 then they should have the money to pay the rail staff more.

What ridiculous Brownian bullshit. 🤦‍♂️

The government can have a sensible role to play in long-term investments in infrastructure that will take decades to go through.

Paying the day-to-day staff wages of private businesses though should fall upon those businesses customers.

Getting new track built is an "investment". Getting a new hospital built is an "investment". Increasing staff wages, paying the same nurses or signal staff or anyone else more is not "investing" in rails or the NHS etc

Regardless of what Brown liked to say. I'm disappointed to see you parroting such Brownian bullshit.

HS2 is a white elephant.
Always was. Always will be.

Nope HS2 is only a white elephant if you don't understand the capacity it opens up to shift freight from road to rail.

For reference a new quarry route opened yesterday - 1 train replaces 100 daily lorries.

How many extra lorries and other traffic could be operating if we spent £100bn on new motorways instead though?

100 lorries per day doesn't sound like a big deal to be frank. The M6 carries hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day, not a hundred per day.

Cost, remember. Petrol/diesel. Plus drivers.

100 lorries = 100 Yorkie enthusiasts. PLus congestion at each end.

1 train = 2 drivers.

Indeed.

Fundamentally, the advantage of railways is a much lower coefficient of friction, as well as a resilient trackbed: they can carry far heavier loads for long distances for limited outlays of energy without chewing up the road service and with only a couple of members of staff.

When you add on top how regulated and signalled they are they are much safer too.

Absolutely fantastic for the days when the economy operated by needing tonnes of the same good like coal, going to the same destination, like the coal power plant.

Not so good for the modern economy. But that doesn't suit the agenda some people have to push.

Where do you think the hard core for your motorways comes from? Your Crossrail? Construction in London and the HC? Clue: there is precious little hard rock in the HC.

Have a look at the quarry materials flows. Merehead limestone, for instance.

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

As I said, if you want to shift large volumes of the same good along the same route, then absolutely rail can be great. There's a time and a place for rail.

But the problem is, post-coal, that its not as much, and not as often. Whereas roads, especially in the age of goods getting more complicated and smaller, are stretched well past their capacity.

Adding more rail routes is tinkering at the edges of freight capacity, because most freight doesn't want to be moved by rail. Adding more motorways would be truly transformative.

Not really - most freight is distributed via a hub and spoke system. Delivery to the hubs can be done via rail with lorries doing the last x miles...

And unless I'm missing something the one problem that still hasn't been solved in the post carbon future is fuelling of Lorries...

England is not a large country, for much of the country all the trade being done is the last x miles.

If the capacity demand for freight is there, why is freight rail falling as a share of freight, rather than rising? Why are motorways the ones stretched to triple the capacity they were designed for?

If motorways were idle and empty then sure, no reason to invest in more, but its just not the case.

The capacity isn't there at the moment - Moving the fast trains to HS2 is how the capacity is added to the WCML...

The capacity was there in the past, and yet the share of freight being moved by rail has gone consistently down, and down, and down as we eliminated coal.

It is the road network which is bursting to capacity at hundreds of thousands of vehicles per day per stretch, not hundreds or thousands of them.

You may not have noticed this but train passenger numbers doubled from 2000 to 2019 - and that was done by adding more passenger trains to the network.

I have noticed, which was a pretty inconsequential dent in overall passenger traffic, since over 80% of overall passenger traffic remains via road and not rail. You might also notice the population rose in that time as well.

Meanwhile what happened to motorway traffic in the same time? It went up in both freight and passengers, while the rails doubled in one yet halved in the other.

The simple reality is that roads are a far more useful investment, yet are neglected for purely ideological rather than economic reasons. If you're looking at capacity, then instead of a new WCML I'd be looking at a new M6 and M1 etc as alternatives to the existing ones, with different routes and that would double capacity for both freight and passengers by road which is the overwhelming proportion of both freight and passengers moved in this country.

You can't say they are neglected for ideological reasons. An awful lot of money is spent on upgrades rather than new routes. There is no political appetite to build a new motorway. Up here we benefitted from the A90 Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route. Cambridgeshire and the Midlands benefitted from the A14 Huntingdon bypass. Both built as latest spec motorways (which no longer need hard shoulders) but have green signs and an A-number because motorways are bad.

Worse still is how rare these new not-motorways are. Instead of new they spend £bonkers squeezing narrow lanes onto existing motorway carriageways. Huge cost, huge disruption, limited benefit. What we need are replacement routes for these. Build the M31 to relieve the Heathrow quadrant of the M25. Build the M64 to relieve the West Midlands. etc etc

I agree with you. Stop pissing about trying to squeeze another bit onto existing road, build a new one. Because capacity has been breached well past where it was.

eek and others who love HS2 constantly bang on about capacity, but capacity is the issue with motorways and then some. So where are the new lines of motorways? Not widenings, not alternatives, not small quadrants. Entire full routes, as are proposed with HS2.

New motorways ought to be built all the way from London to Newcastle in the East, and Preston or similar in the West, then onto Scotland. And similar new motorways wherever needed, I've suggested before an "M580" which would remove a lot of congestion from the M62.

biggles said:

MaxPB said:

biggles said:

MaxPB said:

Checking in to say the government are wankers and don't know how to run the country

Emergency legislation against strikers -
1. Strike days must be consecutive, none of this five days of disruption for three days of strikes.
2. Strike pay loss to be calculated as 1/232 not 1/365. Also reduce employer pension contributions by 1/232.
3. Make incentivising strikes with pay over and above lost income illegal.
4. Accelerate automation of key infrastructure and dilute the pool of eligible workers by simplifying the remaining jobs.

1-3 can be done immediately with primary legislation, if that means the whole public sector goes on strike then so be it, they are doing it anyway so it won't make any difference. If the wankers want to strike then make it hurt.

2 would muck around with lots of other pay definitions in law.

3 is not a thing you could legislate for. How can you stop one person/organisation giving another cash?

That excuse for point 2 is why we have this idiotic disconnect and I'm not sure it would anyway, it's a one line change from 1/365 to 1/232.

3. Of course you can, in the UK primary legislation rules all.

You’re showing your ignorance. Go on then - how would you draft 3 without preventing anyone other than state sanctioned entities transferring cash to each other? It’s not possible.

"Strike pay must not exceed lost salaried income" it's really not that difficult.

biggles said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

If the WCML is at capacity then a new line may make sense.

The M1 and M6 absolutely are at capacity, and I believe carry an order of magnitude more than the WCML. So a new M1 and M6 absolutely ought to make sense, using the same logic.

I wonder how much a new M1 and M6 would cost, versus HS2. And what the capacity of the existing and a new M1 and M6 (supplementing the existing M1 and M6, albeit probably on a somewhat different route) would be versus the capacity of HS2/WCML.

Why should we build a new HS2 to relieve pressure on the WCML, but not build a new M1 or M6? And I don't mean the M6 Toll, a tiny little road, I mean full thing, from the South to past Preston at least, where the capacity is regularly past what it was built for already. If not all the way to Scotland.

And like was said about HS2, if you're building a new line, may as well build it to best modern standards. So a new M1 and M6 could be built with modern digital standards from the start, safety investment for lay-bys etc and have 4 or 5 lanes each way from the start for the entire route. Supplementing of course the existing motorway network, because new roads all the way.

Good luck getting that Bill through Parliament.

More seriously, as we move to EVs I do think it is true that building roads will be less controversial.

It will probably be as difficult to get through Parliament as HS2 was - but it would add far more capacity, do far more for the economy, and relieve far more congestion.

The benefits for a new M1 and new M6 would massively outstrip any benefits for increased capacity HS2 brings. I have absolutely no idea how much it would cost, but I imagine it would be comparable to HS2.

wooliedyed said:

bigjohnowls said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

bigjohnowls said:

Poor Politics from Starmer banning Shadow Ministers and PPS's from RMT picket lines.

Labour are either on the side of the workers or the bosses (Tory Govt) in this Trade dispute.

If its not the former whats the point of Labour

Voters who are siding with the bosses are predominantly not going to vote Labour anyway.

Labour voters who are with the workers will see SKS as a weak boring sit on the fence merchant* and see Labour as abandoning workers even more.

*Which of course he is.

Sensible politics. Only idiots, Marxists and closet Marxists support this strike.

Have you seen a Poll?

Even GB News reporter on the ground had to admit most people were sympathetic

I see at least one idiot opposes the strike and thinks that the 89% of railway workers are Marxists. or closet Marxists.

35 in support 49 against per YouGov, however Strongly support 12 vs Strongly oppose 26.
Marginal plurality against the strikes, 2 to 1 with strong opinion against.
Feelings very split

Split on party lines, 74% of Conservative voters oppose the strikes, 59% of Labour voters back the strikes.

LD voters marginally opposed, 49% against to 38% for

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/economy/survey-results/daily/2022/06/08/d6f7e/3

biggles said:

MaxPB said:

biggles said:

MaxPB said:

Checking in to say the government are wankers and don't know how to run the country

Emergency legislation against strikers -
1. Strike days must be consecutive, none of this five days of disruption for three days of strikes.
2. Strike pay loss to be calculated as 1/232 not 1/365. Also reduce employer pension contributions by 1/232.
3. Make incentivising strikes with pay over and above lost income illegal.
4. Accelerate automation of key infrastructure and dilute the pool of eligible workers by simplifying the remaining jobs.

1-3 can be done immediately with primary legislation, if that means the whole public sector goes on strike then so be it, they are doing it anyway so it won't make any difference. If the wankers want to strike then make it hurt.

2 would muck around with lots of other pay definitions in law.

3 is not a thing you could legislate for. How can you stop one person/organisation giving another cash?

That excuse for point 2 is why we have this idiotic disconnect and I'm not sure it would anyway, it's a one line change from 1/365 to 1/232.

3. Of course you can, in the UK primary legislation rules all.

You’re showing your ignorance. Go on then - how would you draft 3 without preventing anyone other than state sanctioned entities transferring cash to each other? It’s not possible.

Edit - not possible in an enforceable way.

There is already serious legislation about who can pay whom and for what, in order to prevent fraud, tax evasion etc