Garry Kasparov @Kasparov63 · 19h Just watched Hillary Clinton here in Munich and she was hawkish & clear-eyed on Putin & need for Ukraine to defeat Russia. Her energy was good after 90m on stage. My wife and I looked at each other & wondered, well, if Trump wants 2024 to be a rematch, doesn't have to be Biden!
The median UK voter sympathises with both sides equally and wants a 2 state solution, so Cameron is right to push that
Wrong. Nobody with more than two brain cells supports a two state solution. After more than 8 seconds thinking about it, it’s clearly gibberish.
So why are Sunak and Cameron so in love with it? Because they have nothing else to offer. Simples. The choice between having gibberish and nothing, is gibberish.
Partition asap before Israel can grab control even more Palestinian area’s, making the situation even more of a headache for Western leaders - this has been the extent of thinking for far too long. A crude Partition neither the Israeli government, nor Palestinians and their leaders at all want, or even think is possible.
So you disagree with me? Okay - I won’t hold you to 8 seconds, take as long as you can, and tell us where through, like so much of the West Bank, where daily lives of Arab and Jew and Christian still so entwined, you are bringing your partition, and they have to be living one side of a divide, in one of the states? Where are you putting these people so it works for them democratically?
With all your lines of partition in a dispute over the same heritage and same land and living standards, are you actually achieving agreement of all the parties, so all parties see it as just, fair, and they are charitable to making the deal work?
Worse. When you help with talks, Getting to yes in talks like these can only start with a blank canvas, not bringing preconditions like 2 state solution to the table to start from. At least see the division in Palestinians, so see at least 3 states.
2 State Solution is just jibberish from the mouths of out of touch Western leaders incapable of the imaginative and bold thinking necessary to actually solve issues like this one. whenever you hear “Two State Solution” know it comes from someone, politician or blog poster, utterly clueless, lazy, and who doesn’t really care shit about peace in that region.
The median voter is there to be led by leaders, not leaders led by voter apathy or indifference
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
David Lammy has suggested that a Labour government will pursue a formal defence relationship with the EU.
And how does that sit with NATO, David?
An elephant trap for Labour to wander into.
It sits very well with it, tbh. NATO membership does not prevent bilateral defence treaties with other countries and we have ones with Japan, Australia, Sweden, Ukraine(?)...
- Leading Democrats say their conversations with the vice president have been a surprising and welcome change - Haley on 2024 election: ‘It will either be me or it will be Kamala Harris’
She's still a decent price.
What a pay day I would get if it is either of these two ladies. Make it so.
Make it so?
Maybe we should have Ensign Ro Laren v. Commander Shelby.
The median UK voter sympathises with both sides equally and wants a 2 state solution, so Cameron is right to push that
Wrong. Nobody with more than two brain cells supports a two state solution. After more than 8 seconds thinking about it, it’s clearly gibberish.
So why are Sunak and Cameron so in love with it? Because they have nothing else to offer. Simples. The choice between having gibberish and nothing, is gibberish.
Partition asap before Israel can grab control even more Palestinian area’s, making the situation even more of a headache for Western leaders - this has been the extent of thinking for far too long. A crude Partition neither the Israeli government, nor Palestinians and their leaders at all want, or even think is possible.
So you disagree with me? Okay - I won’t hold you to 8 seconds, take as long as you can, and tell us where through, like so much of the West Bank, where daily lives of Arab and Jew and Christian still so entwined, you are bringing your partition, and they have to be living one side of a divide, in one of the states? Where are you putting these people so it works for them democratically?
With all your lines of partition in a dispute over the same heritage and same land and living standards, are you actually achieving agreement of all the parties, so all parties see it as just, fair, and they are charitable to making the deal work?
Worse. When you help with talks, Getting to yes in talks like these can only start with a blank canvas, not bringing preconditions like 2 state solution to the table to start from. At least see the division in Palestinians, so see at least 3 states.
2 State Solution is just jibberish from the mouths of out of touch Western leaders incapable of the imaginative and bold thinking necessary to actually solve issues like this one. whenever you hear “Two State Solution” know it comes from someone, politician or blog poster, utterly clueless, lazy, and who doesn’t really care shit about peace in that region.
The median voter is there to be led by leaders, not leaders led by voter apathy or indifference
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
Relocation to where? Iran?
I don't know.
That's the problem, there are so many awful people in the population that none of the Arab states want them as refugees.
7 million have safely fled Syria, but nobody will offer refuge to any of the mere 2 million Gazans.
Yeah, and be a party to ethnic cleansing by the Nethanyahu regime. Why should they ?
To save innocent civilians from being collateral damage during war.
The entire bloody point of having refugee status.
If Palestinians aren't eligible to get refuge during this war, then we should just abolish the idea of refugee status altogether.
Like you give a shit.
Bartholomew seems to be a big fan of ethnic cleansing
No wonder he stopped posting under his real name. He’s an idiot.
Mind you I should have realised that when he told me I was a putinist for not wanting British troops in Ukraine.
I’ll just ignore him from now on.
That never happened, so I suppose I'll call you a fantasist.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
That will mean high salaries for unionised employees, frozen fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
Garry Kasparov @Kasparov63 · 19h Just watched Hillary Clinton here in Munich and she was hawkish & clear-eyed on Putin & need for Ukraine to defeat Russia. Her energy was good after 90m on stage. My wife and I looked at each other & wondered, well, if Trump wants 2024 to be a rematch, doesn't have to be Biden!
I think Garry has been playing too much chess recently.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
The median UK voter sympathises with both sides equally and wants a 2 state solution, so Cameron is right to push that
Wrong. Nobody with more than two brain cells supports a two state solution. After more than 8 seconds thinking about it, it’s clearly gibberish.
So why are Sunak and Cameron so in love with it? Because they have nothing else to offer. Simples. The choice between having gibberish and nothing, is gibberish.
Partition asap before Israel can grab control even more Palestinian area’s, making the situation even more of a headache for Western leaders - this has been the extent of thinking for far too long. A crude Partition neither the Israeli government, nor Palestinians and their leaders at all want, or even think is possible.
So you disagree with me? Okay - I won’t hold you to 8 seconds, take as long as you can, and tell us where through, like so much of the West Bank, where daily lives of Arab and Jew and Christian still so entwined, you are bringing your partition, and they have to be living one side of a divide, in one of the states? Where are you putting these people so it works for them democratically?
With all your lines of partition in a dispute over the same heritage and same land and living standards, are you actually achieving agreement of all the parties, so all parties see it as just, fair, and they are charitable to making the deal work?
Worse. When you help with talks, Getting to yes in talks like these can only start with a blank canvas, not bringing preconditions like 2 state solution to the table to start from. At least see the division in Palestinians, so see at least 3 states.
2 State Solution is just jibberish from the mouths of out of touch Western leaders incapable of the imaginative and bold thinking necessary to actually solve issues like this one. whenever you hear “Two State Solution” know it comes from someone, politician or blog poster, utterly clueless, lazy, and who doesn’t really care shit about peace in that region.
The median voter is there to be led by leaders, not leaders led by voter apathy or indifference
The reason why western politicians talk about a two state solution is that the alternatives are unconscionable or impracticable.
1) A one state solution - apartheid state. Unconscionable.
2) A one state solution - equal rights for all. With the current radicalised Palestinian population you are talking about the effective elimination of the Jewish state
3) relocation of the Palestinian population - both impracticable and unconscionable
4) relocation of the Jewish state - both impracticable and unconscionable
5) the Oslo Accords - the best solution but Arafat screwed that one up. Impracticable
Think I’ve covered all basis. Dr Watson, over to you.
If relocation of the Gazan people happens in this war then that might be unconscionable but it might be practical.
Indeed setting morality aside, it's a far more practical solution than all others.
And if Hamas/Gaza is eliminated, then a two state solution where the Palestinian state is the West Bank alone might become practical too, if the West Bank and Palestine sans Hamas can be peaceful. It would be contiguous too.
You are far too keen on setting morality aside.
I'm not, its not my desired solution at all, but the suggestion was that "if we eliminate the impossible ..." etc but the problem is that unpleasant solutions are not impossible. Far from it.
Indeed decades more of ongoing violence is not an impossible solution either.
The problem is people want to eliminate the undesirable, not just the impossible, then say "voila this must be the solution". Sadly its not, as the undesirable remain possible.
My desired solution is that Hamas lays down its arms, unconditionally surrenders and the fighting ceases. I just appreciate that my desired solution isn't very likely, so with regret the war continuing is the least worst option.
There are no good options. Only scales of bad, and ongoing war is the least worst.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
Same in India. And with the law courts, universities, government buildings, irrigation, telegraphs and railways we built the infrastructure that facilitated the creation of the modern Indian state.
In fact, it also incubated the educated Indian elite that eventually overthrew British rule through itself- if we'd just been autocratic despots and kept them all as serfs that would never have happened.
- Leading Democrats say their conversations with the vice president have been a surprising and welcome change - Haley on 2024 election: ‘It will either be me or it will be Kamala Harris’
She's still a decent price.
What a pay day I would get if it is either of these two ladies. Make it so.
Make it so?
Maybe we should have Ensign Ro Laren v. Commander Shelby.
(both now dead, incidentally)
Actresses are alive.
In Star Trek there's always a parallel universe or quantum gateway or secret cloning programme or some such shit that can be used to bring characters back.
On the subject of railways and the occasional moanings about Beeching; there is a line in Ireland that is 91 km long; going from Limerick to Ballybrophy; it has a 30 mph speed limit, has just had 45 million euros invested in fixing the track. However there are two trains a day on it, and the public subsidy is 500 euros per passenger.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.
Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot
We must be hallucinating the rockets fired into Israel then, and what happened on 7 October. What a ridiculous thing to say. Or the hoards of weapons found.
Oh Hamas are fighting alright, they are just fighting a version of a guerrilla war and utilising their tunnel network. But it means trying to conserve resources, maintain strategic positions and make it difficult for Israel to reach its goals without consequences that will be deemed unacceptable. Rather than attacking in ways that might inflict more casualties but result in losses Hamas cannot survive. Bear in mind a 'win' for Hamas is any conclusion to the conflict that leaves them intact in some way.
Israel for their part lost so few soldiers as they are acutely aware of the dangers and have adopted conservative tactics in terms of advancing only when can be certain most threats have been neutralised.
Which isn't great for civilians.
Try this to give you an idea of the difference between the two sides (if you can call them that) over the last 15 years. Unless you think Palestinians value their lives and the lives of their families less than others which I know to be incorrect then surely one or two things must pop out at you
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
Back here on Planet Earth, "joined up thinking" is normally hideous.
Chaos builds growth. Planning leads to sclerosis and decline.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
Same in India. And with the law courts, universities, government buildings, irrigation, telegraphs and railways we built the infrastructure that facilitated the creation of the modern Indian state.
In fact, it also incubated the educated Indian elite that eventually overthrew British rule through itself- if we'd just been autocratic despots and kept them all as serfs that would never have happened.
I think that arguing the British Empire was a win-win situation for Britain and India is a hard sell.
It certainly could have been a lot worse, and it didn't leave India a completely trashed wasteland, but I don't think that countries that escaped the colonial experience feel that they missed out.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
Same in India. And with the law courts, universities, government buildings, irrigation, telegraphs and railways we built the infrastructure that facilitated the creation of the modern Indian state.
In fact, it also incubated the educated Indian elite that eventually overthrew British rule through itself- if we'd just been autocratic despots and kept them all as serfs that would never have happened.
I think that arguing the British Empire was a win-win situation for Britain and India is a hard sell.
It certainly could have been a lot worse, and it didn't leave India a completely trashed wasteland, but I don't think that countries that escaped the colonial experience feel that they missed out.
Not at all. India did well. It could easily have gone the way of theocracy, or autocracy, like so many other central Asian states - and it's very far from a given it'd have ended up as a single country either.
As it is it's a modern democracy and a unified one with rule of law.
Or at least it was. It's Modi ruining that now, not us.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
Same in India. And with the law courts, universities, government buildings, irrigation, telegraphs and railways we built the infrastructure that facilitated the creation of the modern Indian state.
In fact, it also incubated the educated Indian elite that eventually overthrew British rule through itself- if we'd just been autocratic despots and kept them all as serfs that would never have happened.
Burma was under British rule for almost as long (in fact, it was administered as part of India until 1937). How come Burma is a basket-case dictatorship riven by civil war?
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
And nationalisation was an absolute disaster. Money thrown at the railways in the 1955 modernisation plan, and much of it went to the wrong places. It's an interesting counter-factual to think what would have happened if the railways had not been nationalised in 1948, and the Big Four paid for their wartime work. Lines would have closed.... but so many?
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
Back here on Planet Earth, "joined up thinking" is normally hideous.
Chaos builds growth. Planning leads to sclerosis and decline.
On the subject of railways and the occasional moanings about Beeching; there is a line in Ireland that is 91 km long; going from Limerick to Ballybrophy; it has a 30 mph speed limit, has just had 45 million euros invested in fixing the track. However there are two trains a day on it, and the public subsidy is 500 euros per passenger.
Imagine the weakness of character required to throw a tantrum after you paid $44 billion to buy a social media platform, but the president of the United States still gets more attention on it than you do. https://twitter.com/MacWBishop/status/1759228115790835847
David Lammy has suggested that a Labour government will pursue a formal defence relationship with the EU.
And how does that sit with NATO, David?
An elephant trap for Labour to wander into.
Fine I would think. We already now have a formal defence relationship with Ukraine. As do France and Germany.
Why not the EU ?
Because I don't trust the EU institutions, their treaties and their dogma as far as I can throw them.
I'm fine with a multilateral treaty with the countries themselves.
With respect, that's your problem, rather than a real one.
Not really, since there's no EU military yet.
Its one area where quite frankly, the EU is pissweak and irrelevant.
Nor is there going to be one anytime soon, thank goodness. The Poles haven't just spent a fortune upgrading their military just to hand the keys over to someone else.
The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.
Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.
But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.
This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.
It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱
One more fragment of evidence in favour of your hypothesis: the continual stalling by the Government over the date and location of the fourth summit of the European Political Community, which the UK is meant to be hosting this Spring.
A giveaway in the March budget - some kind of tax cut, possibly a surprise bribe for pensioners - would certainly act as a springboard from which to launch a campaign, too. Announcing fresh austerity and tax cuts then challenging Labour to oppose is a valid strategy for the Tories; much polling evidence suggests that voters cleave more to prioritising spending on public services, but most people are also fundamentally selfish. They welcome more money for themselves, whilst expecting other people to fund the extra spending, and a lot of traditional Tory voters will be thrilled if offered a penny or two off income tax paid for by battering social security claimants.
Another new one added to the list today, is if they go beyond May 2nd, is the voters are expecting a happy and speedy outcome for the post masters and mistresses wronged in the biggest government cover up scandal UK has ever seen. Voters expecting action on this soon not least because Sunak jolly well properly promised it.
We’ll know in about four weeks. For an election on 2nd May, dissolution must be 26th March. There is always some time between announcement and dissolution (7 days last time, 14 days in 2017, 6 days in 2010 (2015 had an automatic dissolution), 6 days in 2005, 21 days in 1997 (Parliament dissolved while prorogued in 2001).
So we’d expect a 2nd May election to be called by Sunak any time between 12th March and 20th March. Giving us somewhere between three weeks and two days from now to four weeks and three days from now.
We’d expect more concrete hints to come out that they’re properly swinging into preparation action as well.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
Same in India. And with the law courts, universities, government buildings, irrigation, telegraphs and railways we built the infrastructure that facilitated the creation of the modern Indian state.
In fact, it also incubated the educated Indian elite that eventually overthrew British rule through itself- if we'd just been autocratic despots and kept them all as serfs that would never have happened.
Burma was under British rule for almost as long (in fact, it was administered as part of India until 1937). How come Burma is a basket-case dictatorship riven by civil war?
On the subject of railways and the occasional moanings about Beeching; there is a line in Ireland that is 91 km long; going from Limerick to Ballybrophy; it has a 30 mph speed limit, has just had 45 million euros invested in fixing the track. However there are two trains a day on it, and the public subsidy is 500 euros per passenger.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
Back here on Planet Earth, "joined up thinking" is normally hideous.
Chaos builds growth. Planning leads to sclerosis and decline.
What is the motor car? You polyp.
Did the motorcar somehow cease to exist in the late 1980s?
Evolution is the strongest way to achieve sustainable growth, and evolution is best arising out of chaos.
Same is true around the globe. Germans in Eastern Europe, Azebaijanis etc have not gone back. Jews too across the globe.
As for those who don't want to go, so long as each and every one of them lays down their arms and unconditionally stops fighting then there should be no more fighting.
If anyone continues to fight, then Israel should continue to seek to eliminate them. Innocents who choose to stay do so in full knowledge they may be collateral damage, but that is their choice and should be respected. If they are its sad, but its entirely Hamas's fault.
You're such an ignorant buffoon I'm amazed anyone gives you the time of day
The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.
Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.
But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.
This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.
It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
Back here on Planet Earth, "joined up thinking" is normally hideous.
Chaos builds growth. Planning leads to sclerosis and decline.
What is the motor car? You polyp.
Not a very nice response to a serious and genuine dataset.
The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.
Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.
But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.
This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.
It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
Attlee 1951 would be the most recent.
Didn't Attlee call the election hoping to increase his very slender majority?
More shades of 2017 (though not as absurd) than calling an election expecting to lose.
The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.
Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot
The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.
Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.
But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.
This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.
It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
Attlee 1951 would be the most recent.
And that doesn't do much for Moon's (I hope I'm not being too forward in so calling her) thesis. That wasn't driven by "this is when we get the best result", so much as "don't make life awkward for HMK".
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
Back here on Planet Earth, "joined up thinking" is normally hideous.
Chaos builds growth. Planning leads to sclerosis and decline.
What is the motor car? You polyp.
Did the motorcar somehow cease to exist in the late 1980s?
Evolution is the strongest way to achieve sustainable growth, and evolution is best arising out of chaos.
Chaos beats planning consistently.
Between 1920 and 1980 there was a planned build up of highways and byways for the new motor car. This is reflected in said graph.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
That will mean high salaries for unionised employees, frozen fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
Compared to the current system of high salaries for managers and consultants, high and complex fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure (think CrossCountry four coach trains).
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
Back here on Planet Earth, "joined up thinking" is normally hideous.
Chaos builds growth. Planning leads to sclerosis and decline.
What is the motor car? You polyp.
Not a very nice response to a serious and genuine dataset.
The data set can be serious, the poster can be a clown.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
Back here on Planet Earth, "joined up thinking" is normally hideous.
Chaos builds growth. Planning leads to sclerosis and decline.
What is the motor car? You polyp.
Did the motorcar somehow cease to exist in the late 1980s?
Evolution is the strongest way to achieve sustainable growth, and evolution is best arising out of chaos.
Chaos beats planning consistently.
Between 1920 and 1980 there was a planned build up of highways and byways for the new motor car. This is reflected in said graph.
Actually much of the build up of highways and byways was chaotic and only considerably later planned to be joined up. The motorways were formed not as a plan, but by connecting bits that were chaotically and piecemeal constructed before then, which makes sense - again evolution beats revolution, chaos leads to growth.
Unfortunately once "planning" took over, then the construction stopped and we've seen decades of neglect whereby while our country has increased in population by over 10 million, we've not been investing in new motorways and there's been negligible growth in roads. Part of the reason we've got miserable productivity in this country, we're squeezing more people into the same infrastructure then bemoaning why is productivity crap - nothing wrong with growing population but you need to grow your infrastructure with it.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
That will mean high salaries for unionised employees, frozen fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
Compared to the current system of high salaries for managers and consultants, high and complex fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure (think CrossCountry four coach trains).
The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.
Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.
But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.
This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.
It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
Attlee 1951 would be the most recent.
And that doesn't do much for Moon's (I hope I'm not being too forward in so calling her) thesis. That wasn't driven by "this is when we get the best result", so much as "don't make life awkward for HMK".
Well, depending on how bad Charles' cancer is, it might make sense to bring the election forward so he's still alive to swear in the new PM.
The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.
Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.
But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.
This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.
It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
There's always the case of Atlee in October 1951.
The Feb 1950 election had left him with a majority of 5 - but, since then, the Korean war and the decision to suddenly shift industrial production towards rearmament resulted in the first of the stop-go cycles that came to dominate the UK economy for the next 20 years.
Inflation began to roar, reaching 12% on the eve of the election. Rearmament had started the Bevan v Gaitskill split, and Labour's civil war was kicking off.
Atlee didn't believe an election would be winnable, but appears to have been pushed into calling one anyway by George VI who was due to go on a Commonwealth tour. It's said that he didn't want to leave the country when the government's majority was beginning to look so precarious.
It's instructive to compare that with today's situation. The Sunak government still has a solid majority, and the situation is nothing like the one Atlee found himself in. Why would he throw it away 8 months early?
I accept the idea and phrase “throwing something valuable away” - but I claim what you are failing to understand here, is what is most valuable thing which can be thrown away by this decision.
Political power and your majority can’t be thrown away by you, because it doesn’t belong to you - it belongs to the clock. It doesn’t just exist, timelessly, maintaining its value. In time its value depreciates, untill it is replaced as most valuable thing, by the result you can get at the approaching election.
Unlike so many other democracies, UK PM has a choice on timing. At end of parliamentary cycle, the majority you have got, the power you have got, is not part of the equation or decision on timing at all - next election result is now the value consideration you are deciding on. In this situation, Rishi can do nothing at all about power timing out, the majority disappearing, this decision now is simply about securing the best possible result for party to come back from - 190 seats or 140 seats, that’s the real value in his decision he can throw away, if he doesn’t get it right. 50 seats, or maybe many more thrown away, by not getting the timing right.
All the scientists and experts work out the period and day for you to get the best possible result, for you and party - “2nd May Primeminister - the very last date you can call it this spring, before all the bad narrative steaming down the track towards you kicks in by the autumn”.
So I don’t understand, what motive you can have for the Primeminister ignoring the expensive experts he’s brought in, and being paid for from party coffers, to then hang on till last minute anyway?
What are you claiming Sunak sees as value here, at this point?
He would need a motive to do ignore 2nd of May. And outside of the most fantastical cynicism, where Rishi’s only motivation is in it for himself, here in the real world, he is in it for the party to come away with the best result possible.
So, first part of equation, the experts are saying spring election, they can’t possibly believe narrative is better in Autumn. So what actual motive are you attributing to Sunak, for ignoring this scientific, reasoned, and expensively paid for from party coffers, advice?
The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.
Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.
But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.
This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.
It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
Attlee 1951 would be the most recent.
Didn't Attlee call the election hoping to increase his very slender majority?
More shades of 2017 (though not as absurd) than calling an election expecting to lose.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
That will mean high salaries for unionised employees, frozen fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
Compared to the current system of high salaries for managers and consultants, high and complex fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure (think CrossCountry four coach trains).
I remember how shit British Rail was.
Do you?
To be fair it wasn't all bad news. We wouldn't have had this sketch without it:
The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.
Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.
But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.
This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.
It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
There's always the case of Atlee in October 1951.
The Feb 1950 election had left him with a majority of 5 - but, since then, the Korean war and the decision to suddenly shift industrial production towards rearmament resulted in the first of the stop-go cycles that came to dominate the UK economy for the next 20 years.
Inflation began to roar, reaching 12% on the eve of the election. Rearmament had started the Bevan v Gaitskill split, and Labour's civil war was kicking off.
Atlee didn't believe an election would be winnable, but appears to have been pushed into calling one anyway by George VI who was due to go on a Commonwealth tour. It's said that he didn't want to leave the country when the government's majority was beginning to look so precarious.
It's instructive to compare that with today's situation. The Sunak government still has a solid majority, and the situation is nothing like the one Atlee found himself in. Why would he throw it away 8 months early?
I accept the idea and phrase “throwing something valuable away” - but I claim what you are failing to understand here, is what is most valuable thing which can be thrown away by this decision.
Political power and your majority can’t be thrown away by you, because it doesn’t belong to you - it belongs to the clock. It doesn’t just exist, timelessly, maintaining its value. In time its value depreciates, untill it is replaced as most valuable thing, by the result you can get at the approaching election.
Unlike so many other democracies, UK PM has a choice on timing. At end of parliamentary cycle, the majority you have got, the power you have got, is not part of the equation or decision on timing at all - next election result is now the value consideration you are deciding on. In this situation, Rishi can do nothing at all about power timing out, the majority disappearing, this decision now is simply about securing the best possible result for party to come back from - 190 seats or 140 seats, that’s the real value in his decision he can throw away, if he doesn’t get it right. 50 seats, or maybe many more thrown away, by not getting the timing right.
All the scientists and experts work out the period and day for you to get the best possible result, for you and party - “2nd May Primeminister - the very last date you can call it this spring, before all the bad narrative steaming down the track towards you kicks in by the autumn”.
So I don’t understand, what motive you can have for the Primeminister ignoring the expensive experts he’s brought in, and being paid for from party coffers, to then hang on till last minute anyway?
What are you claiming Sunak sees as value here, at this point?
He would need a motive to do ignore 2nd of May. And outside of the most fantastical cynicism, where Rishi’s only motivation is in it for himself, here in the real world, he is in it for the party to come away with the best result possible.
So, first part of equation, the experts are saying spring election, they can’t possibly believe narrative is better in Autumn. So what actual motive are you attributing to Sunak, for ignoring this scientific, reasoned, and expensively paid for from party coffers, advice?
Soz, I cannot take anybody seriously who repeatedly thinks Prime Minister is one word.
They want him to stand down voluntarily. But won't send in letters. They are awaiting the May locals which they think will be so bad that he might resign. Then they'll send in letters if he doesn't. Some tortured logic and spineless cowardice there even by recent Tory standards.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
Back here on Planet Earth, "joined up thinking" is normally hideous.
Chaos builds growth. Planning leads to sclerosis and decline.
What is the motor car? You polyp.
Did the motorcar somehow cease to exist in the late 1980s?
Evolution is the strongest way to achieve sustainable growth, and evolution is best arising out of chaos.
Chaos beats planning consistently.
Between 1920 and 1980 there was a planned build up of highways and byways for the new motor car. This is reflected in said graph.
Actually much of the build up of highways and byways was chaotic and only considerably later planned to be joined up. The motorways were formed not as a plan, but by connecting bits that were chaotically and piecemeal constructed before then, which makes sense - again evolution beats revolution, chaos leads to growth.
Unfortunately once "planning" took over, then the construction stopped and we've seen decades of neglect whereby while our country has increased in population by over 10 million, we've not been investing in new motorways and there's been negligible growth in roads. Part of the reason we've got miserable productivity in this country, we're squeezing more people into the same infrastructure then bemoaning why is productivity crap - nothing wrong with growing population but you need to grow your infrastructure with it.
How many cars were there in 1920 and then in 1980? Do you not think that might be the reason railway journeys decline between the time periods? Are you an evolutionary dead end? Do you work in sales & marketing?
I like Moonrabbit's confidence and I hope she (he/they?) is right because 1) we need to get rid of this shambolic government asap and 2) May 2nd was my prediction in the competition.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
I know someone who does maintenance work for leased trains.
Apparently its possible to earn over £100k doing so without working too hard.
Don't know who's 'fault' this is or even if there is any 'fault' applicable.
Presumaby the “fault” of the personal who spent years educating and training up in hard to obtain skills
The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.
Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.
But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.
This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.
It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
There's always the case of Atlee in October 1951.
The Feb 1950 election had left him with a majority of 5 - but, since then, the Korean war and the decision to suddenly shift industrial production towards rearmament resulted in the first of the stop-go cycles that came to dominate the UK economy for the next 20 years.
Inflation began to roar, reaching 12% on the eve of the election. Rearmament had started the Bevan v Gaitskill split, and Labour's civil war was kicking off.
Atlee didn't believe an election would be winnable, but appears to have been pushed into calling one anyway by George VI who was due to go on a Commonwealth tour. It's said that he didn't want to leave the country when the government's majority was beginning to look so precarious.
It's instructive to compare that with today's situation. The Sunak government still has a solid majority, and the situation is nothing like the one Atlee found himself in. Why would he throw it away 8 months early?
I accept the idea and phrase “throwing something valuable away” - but I claim what you are failing to understand here, is what is most valuable thing which can be thrown away by this decision.
Political power and your majority can’t be thrown away by you, because it doesn’t belong to you - it belongs to the clock. It doesn’t just exist, timelessly, maintaining its value. In time its value depreciates, untill it is replaced as most valuable thing, by the result you can get at the approaching election.
Unlike so many other democracies, UK PM has a choice on timing. At end of parliamentary cycle, the majority you have got, the power you have got, is not part of the equation or decision on timing at all - next election result is now the value consideration you are deciding on. In this situation, Rishi can do nothing at all about power timing out, the majority disappearing, this decision now is simply about securing the best possible result for party to come back from - 190 seats or 140 seats, that’s the real value in his decision he can throw away, if he doesn’t get it right. 50 seats, or maybe many more thrown away, by not getting the timing right.
All the scientists and experts work out the period and day for you to get the best possible result, for you and party - “2nd May Primeminister - the very last date you can call it this spring, before all the bad narrative steaming down the track towards you kicks in by the autumn”.
So I don’t understand, what motive you can have for the Primeminister ignoring the expensive experts he’s brought in, and being paid for from party coffers, to then hang on till last minute anyway?
What are you claiming Sunak sees as value here, at this point?
He would need a motive to do ignore 2nd of May. And outside of the most fantastical cynicism, where Rishi’s only motivation is in it for himself, here in the real world, he is in it for the party to come away with the best result possible.
So, first part of equation, the experts are saying spring election, they can’t possibly believe narrative is better in Autumn. So what actual motive are you attributing to Sunak, for ignoring this scientific, reasoned, and expensively paid for from party coffers, advice?
An extra eight months at the trough for his mates to fill their boots?
The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.
Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.
But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.
This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.
It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
Attlee 1951 would be the most recent.
And that doesn't do much for Moon's (I hope I'm not being too forward in so calling her) thesis. That wasn't driven by "this is when we get the best result", so much as "don't make life awkward for HMK".
I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Losing 50 seats or more in the next parliament, from getting the election timing wrong, is now far more valuable to Sunak and his party, than a few more months in power.
The bit you have been missing here is as simple as that. Sure a few more months in power, but is that truly more valuable than 50 or more members in the next Parliament?
Go on, answer. Which is more valuable - four more fag end months, or 50 or more MPs?
And this is why he should man up and go for 2nd May.
Whatever the arguments for and against for Sunak, there is just something ‘right’ about a May general election. Plus it gives the new government a short time to bed in before the summer. Gives a chance of a fresh start with Spring in the air.
The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.
Because it's ridiculous. They have no serious weapons and no one is fighting, Since the Israeli invasion of Gaza Israel have lost less than 210 soldiers. The Palestinians have lost in excess of 26,000. It's what's known as a Turkey shoot
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
That will mean high salaries for unionised employees, frozen fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
Compared to the current system of high salaries for managers and consultants, high and complex fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure (think CrossCountry four coach trains).
I remember how shit British Rail was.
Do you?
Everything was shit in the 70s* - nationalised industries, private industries, neither had a monopoly in shiteness.
(*Except music, and even quite a lot of that was shit tbh)
The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.
Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.
But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.
This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.
It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
There's always the case of Atlee in October 1951.
The Feb 1950 election had left him with a majority of 5 - but, since then, the Korean war and the decision to suddenly shift industrial production towards rearmament resulted in the first of the stop-go cycles that came to dominate the UK economy for the next 20 years.
Inflation began to roar, reaching 12% on the eve of the election. Rearmament had started the Bevan v Gaitskill split, and Labour's civil war was kicking off.
Atlee didn't believe an election would be winnable, but appears to have been pushed into calling one anyway by George VI who was due to go on a Commonwealth tour. It's said that he didn't want to leave the country when the government's majority was beginning to look so precarious.
It's instructive to compare that with today's situation. The Sunak government still has a solid majority, and the situation is nothing like the one Atlee found himself in. Why would he throw it away 8 months early?
I accept the idea and phrase “throwing something valuable away” - but I claim what you are failing to understand here, is what is most valuable thing which can be thrown away by this decision.
Political power and your majority can’t be thrown away by you, because it doesn’t belong to you - it belongs to the clock. It doesn’t just exist, timelessly, maintaining its value. In time its value depreciates, untill it is replaced as most valuable thing, by the result you can get at the approaching election.
Unlike so many other democracies, UK PM has a choice on timing. At end of parliamentary cycle, the majority you have got, the power you have got, is not part of the equation or decision on timing at all - next election result is now the value consideration you are deciding on. In this situation, Rishi can do nothing at all about power timing out, the majority disappearing, this decision now is simply about securing the best possible result for party to come back from - 190 seats or 140 seats, that’s the real value in his decision he can throw away, if he doesn’t get it right. 50 seats, or maybe many more thrown away, by not getting the timing right.
All the scientists and experts work out the period and day for you to get the best possible result, for you and party - “2nd May Primeminister - the very last date you can call it this spring, before all the bad narrative steaming down the track towards you kicks in by the autumn”.
So I don’t understand, what motive you can have for the Primeminister ignoring the expensive experts he’s brought in, and being paid for from party coffers, to then hang on till last minute anyway?
What are you claiming Sunak sees as value here, at this point?
He would need a motive to do ignore 2nd of May. And outside of the most fantastical cynicism, where Rishi’s only motivation is in it for himself, here in the real world, he is in it for the party to come away with the best result possible.
So, first part of equation, the experts are saying spring election, they can’t possibly believe narrative is better in Autumn. So what actual motive are you attributing to Sunak, for ignoring this scientific, reasoned, and expensively paid for from party coffers, advice?
Soz, I cannot take anybody seriously who repeatedly thinks Prime Minister is one word.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
Back here on Planet Earth, "joined up thinking" is normally hideous.
Chaos builds growth. Planning leads to sclerosis and decline.
What is the motor car? You polyp.
Did the motorcar somehow cease to exist in the late 1980s?
Evolution is the strongest way to achieve sustainable growth, and evolution is best arising out of chaos.
Chaos beats planning consistently.
Between 1920 and 1980 there was a planned build up of highways and byways for the new motor car. This is reflected in said graph.
Actually much of the build up of highways and byways was chaotic and only considerably later planned to be joined up. The motorways were formed not as a plan, but by connecting bits that were chaotically and piecemeal constructed before then, which makes sense - again evolution beats revolution, chaos leads to growth.
Unfortunately once "planning" took over, then the construction stopped and we've seen decades of neglect whereby while our country has increased in population by over 10 million, we've not been investing in new motorways and there's been negligible growth in roads. Part of the reason we've got miserable productivity in this country, we're squeezing more people into the same infrastructure then bemoaning why is productivity crap - nothing wrong with growing population but you need to grow your infrastructure with it.
How many cars were there in 1920 and then in 1980? Do you not think that might be the reason railway journeys decline between the time periods? Are you an evolutionary dead end? Do you work in sales & marketing?
1980 19.2 million registered cars in the UK. 2022 32.2 million registered cars in the UK.
Explaining the decline in railway usage between 1920 and 1980 by the rise of the motor vehicle may be fair, but then why the rise in railway usage post-privatisation when the number of registered vehicles in the UK has gone up by 67%, not down.
I know I mentioned our growing population before, but our population has not grown by 67%
The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.
Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.
But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.
This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.
It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
There's always the case of Atlee in October 1951.
The Feb 1950 election had left him with a majority of 5 - but, since then, the Korean war and the decision to suddenly shift industrial production towards rearmament resulted in the first of the stop-go cycles that came to dominate the UK economy for the next 20 years.
Inflation began to roar, reaching 12% on the eve of the election. Rearmament had started the Bevan v Gaitskill split, and Labour's civil war was kicking off.
Atlee didn't believe an election would be winnable, but appears to have been pushed into calling one anyway by George VI who was due to go on a Commonwealth tour. It's said that he didn't want to leave the country when the government's majority was beginning to look so precarious.
It's instructive to compare that with today's situation. The Sunak government still has a solid majority, and the situation is nothing like the one Atlee found himself in. Why would he throw it away 8 months early?
I accept the idea and phrase “throwing something valuable away” - but I claim what you are failing to understand here, is what is most valuable thing which can be thrown away by this decision.
Political power and your majority can’t be thrown away by you, because it doesn’t belong to you - it belongs to the clock. It doesn’t just exist, timelessly, maintaining its value. In time its value depreciates, untill it is replaced as most valuable thing, by the result you can get at the approaching election.
Unlike so many other democracies, UK PM has a choice on timing. At end of parliamentary cycle, the majority you have got, the power you have got, is not part of the equation or decision on timing at all - next election result is now the value consideration you are deciding on. In this situation, Rishi can do nothing at all about power timing out, the majority disappearing, this decision now is simply about securing the best possible result for party to come back from - 190 seats or 140 seats, that’s the real value in his decision he can throw away, if he doesn’t get it right. 50 seats, or maybe many more thrown away, by not getting the timing right.
All the scientists and experts work out the period and day for you to get the best possible result, for you and party - “2nd May Primeminister - the very last date you can call it this spring, before all the bad narrative steaming down the track towards you kicks in by the autumn”.
So I don’t understand, what motive you can have for the Primeminister ignoring the expensive experts he’s brought in, and being paid for from party coffers, to then hang on till last minute anyway?
What are you claiming Sunak sees as value here, at this point?
He would need a motive to do ignore 2nd of May. And outside of the most fantastical cynicism, where Rishi’s only motivation is in it for himself, here in the real world, he is in it for the party to come away with the best result possible.
So, first part of equation, the experts are saying spring election, they can’t possibly believe narrative is better in Autumn. So what actual motive are you attributing to Sunak, for ignoring this scientific, reasoned, and expensively paid for from party coffers, advice?
Soz, I cannot take anybody seriously who repeatedly thinks Prime Minister is one word.
And this is why he should man up and go for 2nd May.
The only people who ever talk about May are non-Tories.
Is that because Tories are too thick to realise, they are exchanging 4 months worth of magic beans, for 50 of their MPs in the next parliament?
I don't think it works like that.
You're probably right but there will be a large group of Tory MPs who are in the 'could be surviving - could be going' category. They will be much more concerned with getting the best Tory result than having a few extra months in power before the GE.
The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.
Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.
But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.
This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.
It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
Attlee 1951 would be the most recent.
And that doesn't do much for Moon's (I hope I'm not being too forward in so calling her) thesis. That wasn't driven by "this is when we get the best result", so much as "don't make life awkward for HMK".
I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Losing 50 seats or more in the next parliament, from getting the election timing wrong, is now far more valuable to Sunak and his party, than a few more months in power.
The bit you have been missing here is as simple as that. Sure a few more months in power, but is that truly more valuable than 50 or more members in the next Parliament?
Go on, answer. Which is more valuable - four more fag end months, or 50 or more MPs?
Rationally, you're right. The Conservatives get their best result by throwing themselves on the tender mercies of the electorate as soon as possible. April is probably better than May.
But.
Every other postwar PM faced with this situation has gone as long as possible, even when it makes things worse for their party in the next Parliament.
Brown did it, Major did it, Callaghan tried to (but lost a VONC), Home did it. Not because they were fools, or badly advised. But you only get to the top in politics by believing that you can make things better. Gambling at poorish odds that you alone can make something happen is a pretty good exemplar of how politicians think.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
That will mean high salaries for unionised employees, frozen fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
Compared to the current system of high salaries for managers and consultants, high and complex fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure (think CrossCountry four coach trains).
I don't know how bad your regular weekday commuter finds the trains (though that said, the reports of serial cancellations and late runnings on travesties like the WCML and Northern seem to appear in the news on a regular basis,) but certainly the trains are hopeless for the weekend leisure market. Complete loss of service seems to occur practically every other Saturday and Sunday now - either due to endless waves of driver strikes (which means no service at all) or the hated planned engineering work (meaning a hugely extended slog on a cramped, overheated, shitty old bus.)
You can't plan anything in advance involving a rail journey unless you're willing to take a huge gamble on the wazzocks actually running a train service: we once missed a sporting event that we had booked rather expensive tickets for a year in advance, because Network Rail chose that weekend for one of their innumerable shutdowns for their East Coast signalling project (a seemingly endless endeavour which, when complete somewhere around the year 2080, might knock about forty seconds off journey times between London and Edinburgh,) meaning that a fifty minute train ride was replaced by an utterly hopeless three hour trip on an entire chain of connecting buses. And it's pure blind luck that both the events I need to use a southbound train for this month have happily fallen on the weekends when the useless cocks are actually running trains, as opposed to the ones when they're digging up the tracks and we're back to the shitty buses again.
Basically I'm fed up of rail travel, and I'm past caring about the eternal blame game that goes on between the people who run the tracks, the people who run the trains and the richly remunerated but nonetheless very stroppy drivers. I hold the whole rotten lot responsible. It's purely the lack of interest in learning to drive, allied to the astronomical cost of running a car, that keeps me coming back for more punishment. Whether taking the whole lot back into public ownership will make them any bloody better is questionable, but they'd have to go some to make them worse - and at least the franchise operating firms wouldn't be continuing to make profits from the misery of the travelling public.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
Back here on Planet Earth, "joined up thinking" is normally hideous.
Chaos builds growth. Planning leads to sclerosis and decline.
What is the motor car? You polyp.
Did the motorcar somehow cease to exist in the late 1980s?
Evolution is the strongest way to achieve sustainable growth, and evolution is best arising out of chaos.
Chaos beats planning consistently.
Between 1920 and 1980 there was a planned build up of highways and byways for the new motor car. This is reflected in said graph.
Actually much of the build up of highways and byways was chaotic and only considerably later planned to be joined up. The motorways were formed not as a plan, but by connecting bits that were chaotically and piecemeal constructed before then, which makes sense - again evolution beats revolution, chaos leads to growth.
Unfortunately once "planning" took over, then the construction stopped and we've seen decades of neglect whereby while our country has increased in population by over 10 million, we've not been investing in new motorways and there's been negligible growth in roads. Part of the reason we've got miserable productivity in this country, we're squeezing more people into the same infrastructure then bemoaning why is productivity crap - nothing wrong with growing population but you need to grow your infrastructure with it.
How many cars were there in 1920 and then in 1980? Do you not think that might be the reason railway journeys decline between the time periods? Are you an evolutionary dead end? Do you work in sales & marketing?
1980 19.2 million registered cars in the UK. 2022 32.2 million registered cars in the UK.
Explaining the decline in railway usage between 1920 and 1980 by the rise of the motor vehicle may be fair, but then why the rise in railway usage post-privatisation when the number of registered vehicles in the UK has gone up by 67%, not down.
I know I mentioned our growing population before, but our population has not grown by 67%
The massive congestion caused by the increase in the number of cars? Railways are the one form of transport that aren't slowed down by road gridlock.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
Back here on Planet Earth, "joined up thinking" is normally hideous.
Chaos builds growth. Planning leads to sclerosis and decline.
What is the motor car? You polyp.
Did the motorcar somehow cease to exist in the late 1980s?
Evolution is the strongest way to achieve sustainable growth, and evolution is best arising out of chaos.
Chaos beats planning consistently.
Between 1920 and 1980 there was a planned build up of highways and byways for the new motor car. This is reflected in said graph.
Actually much of the build up of highways and byways was chaotic and only considerably later planned to be joined up. The motorways were formed not as a plan, but by connecting bits that were chaotically and piecemeal constructed before then, which makes sense - again evolution beats revolution, chaos leads to growth.
Unfortunately once "planning" took over, then the construction stopped and we've seen decades of neglect whereby while our country has increased in population by over 10 million, we've not been investing in new motorways and there's been negligible growth in roads. Part of the reason we've got miserable productivity in this country, we're squeezing more people into the same infrastructure then bemoaning why is productivity crap - nothing wrong with growing population but you need to grow your infrastructure with it.
How many cars were there in 1920 and then in 1980? Do you not think that might be the reason railway journeys decline between the time periods? Are you an evolutionary dead end? Do you work in sales & marketing?
1980 19.2 million registered cars in the UK. 2022 32.2 million registered cars in the UK.
Explaining the decline in railway usage between 1920 and 1980 by the rise of the motor vehicle may be fair, but then why the rise in railway usage post-privatisation when the number of registered vehicles in the UK has gone up by 67%, not down.
I know I mentioned our growing population before, but our population has not grown by 67%
The massive congestion caused by the increase in the number of cars? Railways are the one form of transport that aren't slowed down by road gridlock.
Although on the WCML they're slowed down by rail gridlock.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
Back here on Planet Earth, "joined up thinking" is normally hideous.
Chaos builds growth. Planning leads to sclerosis and decline.
What is the motor car? You polyp.
Did the motorcar somehow cease to exist in the late 1980s?
Evolution is the strongest way to achieve sustainable growth, and evolution is best arising out of chaos.
Chaos beats planning consistently.
Between 1920 and 1980 there was a planned build up of highways and byways for the new motor car. This is reflected in said graph.
Actually much of the build up of highways and byways was chaotic and only considerably later planned to be joined up. The motorways were formed not as a plan, but by connecting bits that were chaotically and piecemeal constructed before then, which makes sense - again evolution beats revolution, chaos leads to growth.
Unfortunately once "planning" took over, then the construction stopped and we've seen decades of neglect whereby while our country has increased in population by over 10 million, we've not been investing in new motorways and there's been negligible growth in roads. Part of the reason we've got miserable productivity in this country, we're squeezing more people into the same infrastructure then bemoaning why is productivity crap - nothing wrong with growing population but you need to grow your infrastructure with it.
How many cars were there in 1920 and then in 1980? Do you not think that might be the reason railway journeys decline between the time periods? Are you an evolutionary dead end? Do you work in sales & marketing?
1980 19.2 million registered cars in the UK. 2022 32.2 million registered cars in the UK.
Explaining the decline in railway usage between 1920 and 1980 by the rise of the motor vehicle may be fair, but then why the rise in railway usage post-privatisation when the number of registered vehicles in the UK has gone up by 67%, not down.
I know I mentioned our growing population before, but our population has not grown by 67%
The massive congestion caused by the increase in the number of cars? Railways are the one form of transport that aren't slowed down by road gridlock.
Yes railways aren't slowed down by road gridlock, they're slowed down by rail gridlock instead.
Hence the endless bitching and moaning about how shit the railways are, how crap the service is, how its not operating properly, how trains need to be cancelled etc, etc, etc
You seem to act like roads are the only things to have congestion, rails do just as much if not more. Roads actually are more flexible at adapting to congestion since people can more easily take detours than rails can so congestion just leads to rail services being cancelled altogether instead.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
Same in India. And with the law courts, universities, government buildings, irrigation, telegraphs and railways we built the infrastructure that facilitated the creation of the modern Indian state.
In fact, it also incubated the educated Indian elite that eventually overthrew British rule through itself- if we'd just been autocratic despots and kept them all as serfs that would never have happened.
Burma was under British rule for almost as long (in fact, it was administered as part of India until 1937). How come Burma is a basket-case dictatorship riven by civil war?
I hope you're not suggesting that being ruled by Britain wasn't the greatest blessing that could ever be bestowed on a place? Next you'll tell me that railways exist in countries that never had the benefit of British rule. Which is impossible.
- Leading Democrats say their conversations with the vice president have been a surprising and welcome change - Haley on 2024 election: ‘It will either be me or it will be Kamala Harris’
Then it will be Kamala Harris, as it won't be you.
The question is whether Haley will carry on after South Carolina or drop out before Super Tuesday.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
Back here on Planet Earth, "joined up thinking" is normally hideous.
Chaos builds growth. Planning leads to sclerosis and decline.
What is the motor car? You polyp.
Did the motorcar somehow cease to exist in the late 1980s?
Evolution is the strongest way to achieve sustainable growth, and evolution is best arising out of chaos.
Chaos beats planning consistently.
Between 1920 and 1980 there was a planned build up of highways and byways for the new motor car. This is reflected in said graph.
Actually much of the build up of highways and byways was chaotic and only considerably later planned to be joined up. The motorways were formed not as a plan, but by connecting bits that were chaotically and piecemeal constructed before then, which makes sense - again evolution beats revolution, chaos leads to growth.
Unfortunately once "planning" took over, then the construction stopped and we've seen decades of neglect whereby while our country has increased in population by over 10 million, we've not been investing in new motorways and there's been negligible growth in roads. Part of the reason we've got miserable productivity in this country, we're squeezing more people into the same infrastructure then bemoaning why is productivity crap - nothing wrong with growing population but you need to grow your infrastructure with it.
How many cars were there in 1920 and then in 1980? Do you not think that might be the reason railway journeys decline between the time periods? Are you an evolutionary dead end? Do you work in sales & marketing?
1980 19.2 million registered cars in the UK. 2022 32.2 million registered cars in the UK.
Explaining the decline in railway usage between 1920 and 1980 by the rise of the motor vehicle may be fair, but then why the rise in railway usage post-privatisation when the number of registered vehicles in the UK has gone up by 67%, not down.
I know I mentioned our growing population before, but our population has not grown by 67%
Sorry for getting so het up about a chart...
I don't know why there's been such growth after 1980 but nor do I think ascribing the trends to nationalisation and privatisation is fair. There's plenty of potential factors that can influence why and how we all choose to travel.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
That will mean high salaries for unionised employees, frozen fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
Compared to the current system of high salaries for managers and consultants, high and complex fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure (think CrossCountry four coach trains).
I remember how shit British Rail was.
Do you?
Everything was shit in the 70s* - nationalised industries, private industries, neither had a monopoly in shiteness.
(*Except music, and even quite a lot of that was shit tbh)
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
That will mean high salaries for unionised employees, frozen fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
Compared to the current system of high salaries for managers and consultants, high and complex fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure (think CrossCountry four coach trains).
I remember how shit British Rail was.
Do you?
Everything was shit in the 70s* - nationalised industries, private industries, neither had a monopoly in shiteness.
(*Except music, and even quite a lot of that was shit tbh)
- Leading Democrats say their conversations with the vice president have been a surprising and welcome change - Haley on 2024 election: ‘It will either be me or it will be Kamala Harris’
She's still a decent price.
What a pay day I would get if it is either of these two ladies. Make it so.
Make it so?
Maybe we should have Ensign Ro Laren v. Commander Shelby.
(both now dead, incidentally)
Actresses are alive.
In Star Trek there's always a parallel universe or quantum gateway or secret cloning programme or some such shit that can be used to bring characters back.
I now want to see the Bobby Ewing / Picard crossover episode.
And this is why he should man up and go for 2nd May.
The only people who ever talk about May are non-Tories.
Is that because Tories are too thick to realise, they are exchanging 4 months worth of magic beans, for 50 of their MPs in the next parliament?
I don't think it works like that.
You're probably right but there will be a large group of Tory MPs who are in the 'could be surviving - could be going' category. They will be much more concerned with getting the best Tory result than having a few extra months in power before the GE.
Yes, and there's not just one side of the ledger. All sorts of events could turn up to Rishi's advantage, and SKS's disadvantage, in the next 6 months or so - relatively speaking - and it's not like the present polling could get much worse (ok, it could, but it's difficult to see how) so waiting could be rational.
My main contention is the lack of strategic thinking by Rishi to do something with it. He made a really shit decision on HS2 and whilst I'm interested in tax cuts I'm interested in them through lifting the perma-fiscal drag through a LTEP - not the sugar rush of an instant unsustainable pre-election artifical cut - and I also want to hear about plans for education, investment and defence. Lifting our productivity. Raising our performance.
I haven't a clue what his plans are at all for the 2024-2029 parliament, and I'm not sure he does either.
So it's not the waiting that's the issue - it's the lack of strat.
The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.
Curious that none of those endlessly asking for a ceasefire ever ask for Hamas to immediately and unconditionally release all the remaining hostages, as demanded by the ICJ on 24 January.
Such a release would likely make a ceasefire much easier to achieve. Beyond that I don't give a toss about the Middle East.
But I will never vote for a party which abandons British Jews. Or considers them expendable because there are more votes to be obtained from those who want to be horrible to them here.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
That will mean high salaries for unionised employees, frozen fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
Compared to the current system of high salaries for managers and consultants, high and complex fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure (think CrossCountry four coach trains).
I remember how shit British Rail was.
Do you?
Everything was shit in the 70s* - nationalised industries, private industries, neither had a monopoly in shiteness.
(*Except music, and even quite a lot of that was shit tbh)
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
But there are far more trains, IIRC they are on average faster, and, perhaps most importantly:
Can there be a more scandalous development in the Post Office scandal, than a Primeminister and government in public, in parliament, promising whatever it takes to put this right as soon as possible, whilst behind closed doors doing whatever it takes to push the cost of this to fall after the next election? 😠
And this is why he should man up and go for 2nd May.
The only people who ever talk about May are non-Tories.
Is that because Tories are too thick to realise, they are exchanging 4 months worth of magic beans, for 50 of their MPs in the next parliament?
I don't think it works like that.
You're probably right but there will be a large group of Tory MPs who are in the 'could be surviving - could be going' category. They will be much more concerned with getting the best Tory result than having a few extra months in power before the GE.
There's a much bigger group who have given up already and are planning their lives outside of Parliament.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
That will mean high salaries for unionised employees, frozen fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
Compared to the current system of high salaries for managers and consultants, high and complex fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure (think CrossCountry four coach trains).
I remember how shit British Rail was.
Do you?
I remember it being better. Comfortable seats in trains with sufficient carriages, pulled by a proper locomotive. Carriages with compartments and side corridors. Windows that opened. Under British Rail I could get a sleeper to Bristol, Plymouth, Birmingham and Inverness from Glasgow. Through trains to a much wider range of stations. Restaurant Cars. Much more important as a passenger than maximising profits for foreign owned private companies.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
That will mean high salaries for unionised employees, frozen fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
Compared to the current system of high salaries for managers and consultants, high and complex fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure (think CrossCountry four coach trains).
I remember how shit British Rail was.
Do you?
Everything was shit in the 70s* - nationalised industries, private industries, neither had a monopoly in shiteness.
(*Except music, and even quite a lot of that was shit tbh)
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
But there are far more trains, IIRC they are on average faster, and, perhaps most importantly:
SAFER.
A good point. In fact rail travel safer than any other form of travel in the UK apparently.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
And nationalisation was an absolute disaster. Money thrown at the railways in the 1955 modernisation plan, and much of it went to the wrong places. It's an interesting counter-factual to think what would have happened if the railways had not been nationalised in 1948, and the Big Four paid for their wartime work. Lines would have closed.... but so many?
The move from accrual to cash accounting in the late 60s under Barbara Castle might also be a good one to consider. You can understand why the change was made - the previous 20 years had been such a disaster that something needed to be done to stem the bleeding.
But it meant that the only development projects that got approved were the big-ticket things that a government could crow about - the HST, east coast electrification, etc. The intermediate-level stuff that should have happened in the 70s and 80s - branch line electrification, track realignments to support higher speeds, rolling stock replacement - were ignored.
And it would have meant that the industry wouldn't have been in such desperate need of being recapitalised in the early 90s. You could imagine that privatisation might not have been needed at all - or that it could have been done in a very different way from what actually transpired.
- Leading Democrats say their conversations with the vice president have been a surprising and welcome change - Haley on 2024 election: ‘It will either be me or it will be Kamala Harris’
She's still a decent price.
What a pay day I would get if it is either of these two ladies. Make it so.
Make it so?
Maybe we should have Ensign Ro Laren v. Commander Shelby.
(both now dead, incidentally)
Actresses are alive.
In Star Trek there's always a parallel universe or quantum gateway or secret cloning programme or some such shit that can be used to bring characters back.
I now want to see the Bobby Ewing / Picard crossover episode.
What do you call a crossover between Star Wars and Back To The Future?
And this is why he should man up and go for 2nd May.
The only people who ever talk about May are non-Tories.
Is that because Tories are too thick to realise, they are exchanging 4 months worth of magic beans, for 50 of their MPs in the next parliament?
I don't think it works like that.
Ignoring spring election - which can only be on one date, 2nd May - does not come with zero cost, if that’s how you thinking it works?
But what do we know from analysing this one? we now know what the high interest rate “inflation medicine” can do, how long does it take now for the medicine to work out of system, how much and how quickly must rates be cut for growth to return? Meanwhile we continue with Ongoing mortgage crisis as voters switch to higher mortgage bills. We know a damning interim covid report is being published before autumn. And we expect surge in illegal channel crossings during summer and autumn. There will be Credibility and morale shattering set of locals for Tories in May, and lots of Opposition fun after that with “squatting” and “frit” narrative (analysis from 1997 shows clinging on cost John Major votes) its just Giving voters even more time and evidence to realise things ain’t getting better.
4 more months or 50 more MPs, that is the trade off here in delaying till autumn, because picking a bad moment to say “economies turned a corner” or bad moment to say “stop the boats” a bad reaction is exactly the reaction you get in that bad moment, rather than what you get when you pick the better moment, is how it works.
The service I have recently received from BT and Openreach has been excellent, sorting out a complex fault within 48 hours that they texted me about before I knew the line had issues. Engineer than came when they said he was going to and didn't leave until the job was done.
BT was still terrible for years but in the last few has really turned a corner and is doing something right. Ditto Openreach.
Comments
@Kasparov63
·
19h
Just watched Hillary Clinton here in Munich and she was hawkish & clear-eyed on Putin & need for Ukraine to defeat Russia. Her energy was good after 90m on stage. My wife and I looked at each other & wondered, well, if Trump wants 2024 to be a rematch, doesn't have to be Biden!
https://www.government.se/articles/2023/10/strengthened-partnership-between-united-kingdom-and-sweden/
https://www.mofa.go.jp/erp/we/gb/page1e_000556.html
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c923eed915d48c2410aa6/No__12_Cm_8603_Australia_No__1.pdf
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-bilateral-defence-cooperation/
How would one with Europe threaten NATO?
It would strengthen NATO.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Indeed decades more of ongoing violence is not an impossible solution either.
The problem is people want to eliminate the undesirable, not just the impossible, then say "voila this must be the solution". Sadly its not, as the undesirable remain possible.
My desired solution is that Hamas lays down its arms, unconditionally surrenders and the fighting ceases. I just appreciate that my desired solution isn't very likely, so with regret the war continuing is the least worst option.
There are no good options. Only scales of bad, and ongoing war is the least worst.
I'm fine with a multilateral treaty with the countries themselves.
In fact, it also incubated the educated Indian elite that eventually overthrew British rule through itself- if we'd just been autocratic despots and kept them all as serfs that would never have happened.
In Star Trek there's always a parallel universe or quantum gateway or secret cloning programme or some such shit that can be used to bring characters back.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/plans-on-track-to-boost-journeys-on-irelands-most-expensive-railway-line/41725579.html
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
Chaos builds growth. Planning leads to sclerosis and decline.
It certainly could have been a lot worse, and it didn't leave India a completely trashed wasteland, but I don't think that countries that escaped the colonial experience feel that they missed out.
As it is it's a modern democracy and a unified one with rule of law.
Or at least it was. It's Modi ruining that now, not us.
Once there's an EU military then any alliance would need to be with the EU for military purposes, but they're not there yet.
https://twitter.com/MacWBishop/status/1759228115790835847
Its one area where quite frankly, the EU is pissweak and irrelevant.
Nor is there going to be one anytime soon, thank goodness. The Poles haven't just spent a fortune upgrading their military just to hand the keys over to someone else.
For an election on 2nd May, dissolution must be 26th March.
There is always some time between announcement and dissolution (7 days last time, 14 days in 2017, 6 days in 2010 (2015 had an automatic dissolution), 6 days in 2005, 21 days in 1997 (Parliament dissolved while prorogued in 2001).
So we’d expect a 2nd May election to be called by Sunak any time between 12th March and 20th March.
Giving us somewhere between three weeks and two days from now to four weeks and three days from now.
We’d expect more concrete hints to come out that they’re properly swinging into preparation action as well.
Trains! TRAINS! TRAINS!
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., is urging Democrats in Dearborn, Michigan, to vote against President Joe Biden in the state's upcoming Democratic primary.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1759058934122373311
Evolution is the strongest way to achieve sustainable growth, and evolution is best arising out of chaos.
Chaos beats planning consistently.
More shades of 2017 (though not as absurd) than calling an election expecting to lose.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said police were responding to a call of a family in danger. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives described it as a domestic violence call.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/heavy-police-presence-active-scene-minnesota-neighborhood-rcna139385
@GdnPolitics
Tory MPs pushing for Rishi Sunak to quit before he is deposed
https://t.co/THljdZGMqR
He won't last till November
Unfortunately once "planning" took over, then the construction stopped and we've seen decades of neglect whereby while our country has increased in population by over 10 million, we've not been investing in new motorways and there's been negligible growth in roads. Part of the reason we've got miserable productivity in this country, we're squeezing more people into the same infrastructure then bemoaning why is productivity crap - nothing wrong with growing population but you need to grow your infrastructure with it.
Do you?
Tasteless? Moi?
Political power and your majority can’t be thrown away by you, because it doesn’t belong to you - it belongs to the clock. It doesn’t just exist, timelessly, maintaining its value. In time its value depreciates, untill it is replaced as most valuable thing, by the result you can get at the approaching election.
Unlike so many other democracies, UK PM has a choice on timing. At end of parliamentary cycle, the majority you have got, the power you have got, is not part of the equation or decision on timing at all - next election result is now the value consideration you are deciding on. In this situation, Rishi can do nothing at all about power timing out, the majority disappearing, this decision now is simply about securing the best possible result for party to come back from - 190 seats or 140 seats, that’s the real value in his decision he can throw away, if he doesn’t get it right. 50 seats, or maybe many more thrown away, by not getting the timing right.
All the scientists and experts work out the period and day for you to get the best possible result, for you and party - “2nd May Primeminister - the very last date you can call it this spring, before all the bad narrative steaming down the track towards you kicks in by the autumn”.
So I don’t understand, what motive you can have for the Primeminister ignoring the expensive experts he’s brought in, and being paid for from party coffers, to then hang on till last minute anyway?
What are you claiming Sunak sees as value here, at this point?
He would need a motive to do ignore 2nd of May. And outside of the most fantastical cynicism, where Rishi’s only motivation is in it for himself, here in the real world, he is in it for the party to come away with the best result possible.
So, first part of equation, the experts are saying spring election, they can’t possibly believe narrative is better in Autumn. So what actual motive are you attributing to Sunak, for ignoring this scientific, reasoned, and expensively paid for from party coffers, advice?
https://youtu.be/RxV0r-Qz6dM?si=xPuN0JLPeBVI4FbC
Some tortured logic and spineless cowardice there even by recent Tory standards.
https://www.channel4.com/news/over-200-heritage-sites-in-gaza-destroyed-says-culture-ministry
Losing 50 seats or more in the next parliament, from getting the election timing wrong, is now far more valuable to Sunak and his party, than a few more months in power.
The bit you have been missing here is as simple as that. Sure a few more months in power, but is that truly more valuable than 50 or more members in the next Parliament?
Go on, answer. Which is more valuable - four more fag end months, or 50 or more MPs?
None of that if it’s Oct, Nov or worse Jan 2025.
(*Except music, and even quite a lot of that was shit tbh)
If you follow politics at all, you see the narrative isn’t going to change for the better.
2022 32.2 million registered cars in the UK.
Explaining the decline in railway usage between 1920 and 1980 by the rise of the motor vehicle may be fair, but then why the rise in railway usage post-privatisation when the number of registered vehicles in the UK has gone up by 67%, not down.
I know I mentioned our growing population before, but our population has not grown by 67%
But.
Every other postwar PM faced with this situation has gone as long as possible, even when it makes things worse for their party in the next Parliament.
Brown did it, Major did it, Callaghan tried to (but lost a VONC), Home did it. Not because they were fools, or badly advised. But you only get to the top in politics by believing that you can make things better. Gambling at poorish odds that you alone can make something happen is a pretty good exemplar of how politicians think.
Rishi is different, but not that different.
You can't plan anything in advance involving a rail journey unless you're willing to take a huge gamble on the wazzocks actually running a train service: we once missed a sporting event that we had booked rather expensive tickets for a year in advance, because Network Rail chose that weekend for one of their innumerable shutdowns for their East Coast signalling project (a seemingly endless endeavour which, when complete somewhere around the year 2080, might knock about forty seconds off journey times between London and Edinburgh,) meaning that a fifty minute train ride was replaced by an utterly hopeless three hour trip on an entire chain of connecting buses. And it's pure blind luck that both the events I need to use a southbound train for this month have happily fallen on the weekends when the useless cocks are actually running trains, as opposed to the ones when they're digging up the tracks and we're back to the shitty buses again.
Basically I'm fed up of rail travel, and I'm past caring about the eternal blame game that goes on between the people who run the tracks, the people who run the trains and the richly remunerated but nonetheless very stroppy drivers. I hold the whole rotten lot responsible. It's purely the lack of interest in learning to drive, allied to the astronomical cost of running a car, that keeps me coming back for more punishment. Whether taking the whole lot back into public ownership will make them any bloody better is questionable, but they'd have to go some to make them worse - and at least the franchise operating firms wouldn't be continuing to make profits from the misery of the travelling public.
Hence the endless bitching and moaning about how shit the railways are, how crap the service is, how its not operating properly, how trains need to be cancelled etc, etc, etc
You seem to act like roads are the only things to have congestion, rails do just as much if not more. Roads actually are more flexible at adapting to congestion since people can more easily take detours than rails can so congestion just leads to rail services being cancelled altogether instead.
I don't know why there's been such growth after 1980 but nor do I think ascribing the trends to nationalisation and privatisation is fair. There's plenty of potential factors that can influence why and how we all choose to travel.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
My main contention is the lack of strategic thinking by Rishi to do something with it. He made a really shit decision on HS2 and whilst I'm interested in tax cuts I'm interested in them through lifting the perma-fiscal drag through a LTEP - not the sugar rush of an instant unsustainable pre-election artifical cut - and I also want to hear about plans for education, investment and defence. Lifting our productivity. Raising our performance.
I haven't a clue what his plans are at all for the 2024-2029 parliament, and I'm not sure he does either.
So it's not the waiting that's the issue - it's the lack of strat.
https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454
Such a release would likely make a ceasefire much easier to achieve. Beyond that I don't give a toss about the Middle East.
But I will never vote for a party which abandons British Jews. Or considers them expendable because there are more votes to be obtained from those who want to be horrible to them here.
SAFER.
Can there be a more scandalous development in the Post Office scandal, than a Primeminister and government in public, in parliament, promising whatever it takes to put this right as soon as possible, whilst behind closed doors doing whatever it takes to push the cost of this to fall after the next election? 😠
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/18/former-post-office-boss-stall-horizon-compensation-payouts
But it meant that the only development projects that got approved were the big-ticket things that a government could crow about - the HST, east coast electrification, etc. The intermediate-level stuff that should have happened in the 70s and 80s - branch line electrification, track realignments to support higher speeds, rolling stock replacement - were ignored.
And it would have meant that the industry wouldn't have been in such desperate need of being recapitalised in the early 90s. You could imagine that privatisation might not have been needed at all - or that it could have been done in a very different way from what actually transpired.
Man DeLorean.
But what do we know from analysing this one? we now know what the high interest rate “inflation medicine” can do, how long does it take now for the medicine to work out of system, how much and how quickly must rates be cut for growth to return? Meanwhile we continue with Ongoing mortgage crisis as voters switch to higher mortgage bills. We know a damning interim covid report is being published before autumn. And we expect surge in illegal channel crossings during summer and autumn. There will be Credibility and morale shattering set of locals for Tories in May, and lots of Opposition fun after that with “squatting” and “frit” narrative (analysis from 1997 shows clinging on cost John Major votes) its just Giving voters even more time and evidence to realise things ain’t getting better.
4 more months or 50 more MPs, that is the trade off here in delaying till autumn, because picking a bad moment to say “economies turned a corner” or bad moment to say “stop the boats” a bad reaction is exactly the reaction you get in that bad moment, rather than what you get when you pick the better moment, is how it works.
Good luck with that Autumn election. 🙂
The service I have recently received from BT and Openreach has been excellent, sorting out a complex fault within 48 hours that they texted me about before I knew the line had issues. Engineer than came when they said he was going to and didn't leave until the job was done.
BT was still terrible for years but in the last few has really turned a corner and is doing something right. Ditto Openreach.