And you score 10/10. Congrats. Happy trolling - I fear you've already outed yourself since top quality trolling doesn't draw attention to itself, it just nudges subjects into eventual oblivion.
re Was that pasted from somewhere too ? More projection than a multiplex cinema. You protest too much. And it's Miss Withering to you.
I am still trying to come to terms with the shock that a Conservative politician said something bad about Labour in the Daily Telegraph. Thanks for making us all aware of it - we'd never have expected it otherwise.
Renationalising the railways should show the world that we are open for business and enterprise.
titters..
The East Coast line is nationalised and showing a profit for the taxpayer. The West Coast franchise was a disaster for the taxpayer. You'll struggle to persuade anyone outside John Majors group of 1930's fantasists that railway privatisation has worked well.
The ECML: it may not be as simple as the fact it is in public ownership. The ECML is the only large railway in the country that has two competitors under the Open Access legislation: Hull Trains and Grand Central. Competition from these - especially in the southern sections from Peterborough to London - may well have been keeping the operator honest, sharing access costs and creating new traffic flows.
It'd be interesting to see if anyone's tried to separate out the two effects.
As for the WCML upgrade: it was a mess. But the reasons are not just the franchise. The WCML was pretty worn out, and much of the infrastructure needed replacing. Where they went wrong was promising the operator a widescale upgrade, in terms of available paths, line speed and signalling system.
Both passenger and freight traffic (*) have increased massively since privatisation, reversing a long-term decline under BR. The growth has also been sustained through the recession. That may have happened without privatisation: however such growth requires vast investment, and the history of BR shows that permission for the necessary investment was slow to come from government. Indeed, the system only kept working because of some very competent managers. At least according to one person I've spoken to, the situation improved with sectorisation in the 1980s and less central control.
The jury is out on whether privatisation of the railways worked. Certainly, in terms of investment and traffic it did. However, there is a good case for nationalisation in some form, as long as access to investment is maintained. But such a move should be taken with extreme care.
(*) Freight traffic has increased despite a large drop in bulk traffic such as coal, AFAICR.
It's no great surprise that as the Tories go in search of UKIP voters they make it harder for themselves to attract erstwhile LD and Labour voters. Presumably, though, they have factored that in to their calculations. The great merit if swinging to the populist right is that it puts the Tories in their comfort zone. The big drawback is that the Tory comfort zone actively repels as many as it attracts. Thus, it will all come down to turnout. Which of England's two nations will be the more motivated in 2015? For the last 4 GEs it has been the anti-Tory party; Crosby has set himself the task of reviving the anti-Labour coalition of 1992. From 6,000 miles away it looks a tough, but not impossible, task. A hung Parliament with Labour as - marginally - the biggest party still feels like the most likely outcome. But EdM remains a major Labour weakness and that could tip the balance if the Tories can make 2015 a referendum on him.
I think there's a good deal of truth in that. Between them, the Conservatives and UKIP have revived the sort of right-wing vote share, c.44%, that existed in 1992 and previous years.
To summarise the views of the lefties, Labourites, SNP and Lib Dems below. "The Conservatives are making massive political mistakes."
My view is that Cameron and Osborne are doing much better (from a low starting point). The view of the voters is that the Labour lead has dropped down, probably to 5% to 6% although ICM say there is no lead.
So if the Conservatives carry on down this parth the lefties, Labourites, SNP and Lib Dems will all be happy .... and so will I. On that happy note. Chins everyone.
To summarise the views of the lefties, Labourites, SNP and Lib Dems below. "The Conservatives are making massive political mistakes."
My view is that Cameron and Osborne are doing much better (from a low starting point). The view of the voters is that the Labour lead has dropped down, probably to 5% to 6% although ICM say there is no lead.
So if the Conservatives carry on down this parth the lefties, Labourites, SNP and Lib Dems will all be happy .... and so will I. On that happy note. Chins everyone.
The Righties after a very long time are regaining their confidence and stopped apologising for existing, not buying the Guardian or standing up for what they really think.
It's the ICM Shy Tory coming out and almost proud. Over the next couple of years - they may become actually assertive.
This reminds me very much of 1979/83 when there was media horror about 'getting on your bike' and the public said Yes.
It's no great surprise that as the Tories go in search of UKIP voters they make it harder for themselves to attract erstwhile LD and Labour voters. Presumably, though, they have factored that in to their calculations. The great merit if swinging to the populist right is that it puts the Tories in their comfort zone. The big drawback is that the Tory comfort zone actively repels as many as it attracts. Thus, it will all come down to turnout. Which of England's two nations will be the more motivated in 2015? For the last 4 GEs it has been the anti-Tory party; Crosby has set himself the task of reviving the anti-Labour coalition of 1992. From 6,000 miles away it looks a tough, but not impossible, task. A hung Parliament with Labour as - marginally - the biggest party still feels like the most likely outcome. But EdM remains a major Labour weakness and that could tip the balance if the Tories can make 2015 a referendum on him.
I think there's a good deal of truth in that. Between them, the Conservatives and UKIP have revived the sort of right-wing vote share, c.44%, that existed in 1992 and previous years.
Sean, aren't you assuming that all UKIP voters are essentially Conservatives "gone astray" ? There's plenty of evidence that UKIP has attracted voters from all parties and none - more from the Conservative camp, granted, but not all.
The argument from Cameron is that IF he can get UKIP down to 5%, that will leave him with a national share of 40% or so which might be an election-winning score. I suspect much of the ex-Tory UKIP share has already "come home" and it may be harder to squeeze out that vital 2-3% which might leave the Conservative vote share closer to the 2010 figure.
"Labour have nothing to gain by attacking the Conservatives from the left, on immigration."
On the contrary they have everything to gain by hammering away at the theme the Tories are still the 'nasty party'. A fear that cost them an outright victory last time and a theme that is likely to be even more salient this time. Clegg got nearly a quarter of the vote by being the 'nice party'. I just hope Ed has the bottle....
Rich media leftie luvvie white people find all sorts of things offensive.
Steven Fry had them nailed:
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f*****g what.”
― Stephen Fry
Best not vote for the PM who ordered an investigation into Rihannas corset then
Even if one thinks that the free market is wonderful, the rail franchising system is ridiculous. Is it a free market? No. It's largely a system of local monopolies, inevitably as the tracks are congested. Does it encourage long-term thinking? No - on the contrary, it punishes it as franchises near their end and the franchisee doesn't know if they'll get renewed. Does it encourage long-distance travel? No, it makes it messier with cross-company bookings. Does the Treasury benefit from the money paid for the bids? No, because we give it back, and more, in subsidies. I'm all for a free market in consumer goods - who needs a British Rice Krispies state monopoly? But this system is simply rubbish.
Taking them back into public ownership as the franchises expire has several merits: (a) it has public support (b) it puts issues of infrastructure investment and subsidy into the public domain where they belong (c) it gives left-wing voters something specific to be happy about (d) it's gradual so we have time to do it carefully and and (e) the cost of compensation to shareholders is zero. What's not to like?
"As I said earlier, I don't find it offensive. So it's OK to be in this country illegally, Roger?"
I always think of you as the Aziz character in 'A Passage to India'. You have so much love for Tory Britain you refuse to be offended even when the offense is gross.
Happily Aziz finally saw the light (otherwise EM Forster wouldn't have had a story!)
Jeremy Hunt in a bit of difficulty in the High Court, it would appear.
How did he f*ck that one up? Call 111. Oh, it doesn't work and he's on holiday anyway
Even Mr Justice Silber managed to grasp the essential point, that "in relation to the trust" does not mean in relation to any trust.
“When the Secretary of State appointed the Trust Special Administrator to investigate and develop recommendations on the future of South London Healthcare NHS Trust, he promised that there would be no “back-door approach to reconfiguration”; there would be no reconfiguration of neighbouring NHS services delivered by other NHS bodies beyond the South London Trust. http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/hsj-live/hsj-live-3172013-judge-rules-on-lewisham-downgrade/5061803.article?referrer=RSS?WT.mc_id=twitterfreefeed Thats brilliant, Lansley halted the London configurations for ideological reasons, then in comes Jeremy Chum and tries to do them illegally.
Thanks Tim for more good examples of this Govts work. When can we expect the uplift in Labour's polling lead and also when will we see Ed Milliband regarded as the best PM we have never had?
In view of all the happiness on here with the strategic moves that the Govt is making which are welcomed by the lefties and by the righties... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUTWjZblNzI
@Sunil "As I said earlier, I don't find it offensive. So it's OK to be in this country illegally, Roger?" I always think of you as the Aziz character in 'A Passage to India'. You have so much love for Tory Britain you refuse to be offended even when the offense is gross. Happily Aziz finally saw the light (otherwise EM Forster wouldn't have had a story!)
@Sunil "As I said earlier, I don't find it offensive. So it's OK to be in this country illegally, Roger?" I always think of you as the Aziz character in 'A Passage to India'. You have so much love for Tory Britain you refuse to be offended even when the offense is gross. Happily Aziz finally saw the light (otherwise EM Forster wouldn't have had a story!)
Taking them back into public ownership as the franchises expire has several merits: (a) it has public support (b) it puts issues of infrastructure investment and subsidy into the public domain where they belong (c) it gives left-wing voters something specific to be happy about (d) it's gradual so we have time to do it carefully and and (e) the cost of compensation to shareholders is zero. What's not to like?
Nick, while I agree with many of the points that you make about our current franchising scheme and its deficiencies I think the solution that you are floating is not the answer. As regard your points: (a) Going back to BR is going to be popular? I really doubt it. It would be a mistake to confuse frustration with the current mess with a nostalgia for public ownership. (b) I just plainly disagree with that. We had decades where the rail service was starved of capital investment by governments of both parties because it was a lot easier to cut that than schools and hospitals. Incentivised private capital investment is the right way forward. (c) True but it gives a very backward looking message to floating voters. (d) Don't really understand this point. Trying to integrate bits of the network over time looks more complicated to me. How many times will the management require reorganised? (e) True, although Branson will probably find a way!
As a north Briton my frustrations with rail are basically the absurd pricing structures. The government needs to sort this out in the same way as they are for fuel companies. In southern England capacity is clearly a bigger issue but we don't see that much up here. We need longer franchises, better regulation and simplification of prices. It really isn't rocket science.
"Labour have nothing to gain by attacking the Conservatives from the left, on immigration."
On the contrary they have everything to gain by hammering away at the theme the Tories are still the 'nasty party'. A fear that cost them an outright victory last time and a theme that is likely to be even more salient this time. Clegg got nearly a quarter of the vote by being the 'nice party'. I just hope Ed has the bottle....
Attacks on the "nasty party" resonate with floating voters when they are attacks on the Conservatives for being too close to rich people. They don't resonate with floating voters when they are attacks on the Conservatives for being too tough on immigrants.
The Conservatives' enduring problem is that they're seen as the party of the rich. Labour's enduring problem is that they're seen as the party of immigrants and benefit claimants.
It's no great surprise that as the Tories go in search of UKIP voters they make it harder for themselves to attract erstwhile LD and Labour voters. Presumably, though, they have factored that in to their calculations. The great merit if swinging to the populist right is that it puts the Tories in their comfort zone. The big drawback is that the Tory comfort zone actively repels as many as it attracts. Thus, it will all come down to turnout. Which of England's two nations will be the more motivated in 2015? For the last 4 GEs it has been the anti-Tory party; Crosby has set himself the task of reviving the anti-Labour coalition of 1992. From 6,000 miles away it looks a tough, but not impossible, task. A hung Parliament with Labour as - marginally - the biggest party still feels like the most likely outcome. But EdM remains a major Labour weakness and that could tip the balance if the Tories can make 2015 a referendum on him.
I think there's a good deal of truth in that. Between them, the Conservatives and UKIP have revived the sort of right-wing vote share, c.44%, that existed in 1992 and previous years.
Sean, aren't you assuming that all UKIP voters are essentially Conservatives "gone astray" ? There's plenty of evidence that UKIP has attracted voters from all parties and none - more from the Conservative camp, granted, but not all.
The argument from Cameron is that IF he can get UKIP down to 5%, that will leave him with a national share of 40% or so which might be an election-winning score. I suspect much of the ex-Tory UKIP share has already "come home" and it may be harder to squeeze out that vital 2-3% which might leave the Conservative vote share closer to the 2010 figure.
I can't see the Tories getting back to the 42-44% they had in the 1980s. I think that a fair few voters will stick with UKIP regardless.
"Labour have nothing to gain by attacking the Conservatives from the left, on immigration."
On the contrary they have everything to gain by hammering away at the theme the Tories are still the 'nasty party'. A fear that cost them an outright victory last time and a theme that is likely to be even more salient this time. Clegg got nearly a quarter of the vote by being the 'nice party'. I just hope Ed has the bottle....
Attacks on the "nasty party" resonate with floating voters when they are attacks on the Conservatives for being too close to rich people. They don't resonate with floating voters when they are attacks on the Conservatives for being too tough on immigrants.
The Conservatives' enduring problem is that they're seen as the party of the rich. Labour's enduring problem is that they're seen as the party of immigrants and benefit claimants.
IIRC it was the party of single mums and asylum seekers.
@NickPalmer - Whilst those are fair points, the counter argument is that the British state has been shown, time after time, to be absolutely rubbish at running enterprises. It's true that the folk memory of just how awful such enterprises were is beginning to fade a bit, but it might well be revived by New British Rail.
As regards the politics, a lot would depend on whether you could persuade the unions to hide their glee at what they would undoubtedly regard as a gravy train for their members.
@NickPalmer - Whilst those are fair points, the counter argument is that the British state has been shown, time after time, to be absolutely rubbish at running enterprises. It's true that the folk memory of just how awful such enterprises were is beginning to fade a bit, but it might well be revived by New British Rail.
The best solution would be for the British railways to be nationalized, but by a different nation.
@NickPalmer - Whilst those are fair points, the counter argument is that the British state has been shown, time after time, to be absolutely rubbish at running enterprises. It's true that the folk memory of just how awful such enterprises were is beginning to fade a bit, but it might well be revived by New British Rail.
The best solution would be for the British railways to be nationalized, but by a different nation.
Even if one thinks that the free market is wonderful, the rail franchising system is ridiculous. Is it a free market? No. It's largely a system of local monopolies, inevitably as the tracks are congested. Does it encourage long-term thinking? No - on the contrary, it punishes it as franchises near their end and the franchisee doesn't know if they'll get renewed. Does it encourage long-distance travel? No, it makes it messier with cross-company bookings. Does the Treasury benefit from the money paid for the bids? No, because we give it back, and more, in subsidies. I'm all for a free market in consumer goods - who needs a British Rice Krispies state monopoly? But this system is simply rubbish.
Taking them back into public ownership as the franchises expire has several merits: (a) it has public support (b) it puts issues of infrastructure investment and subsidy into the public domain where they belong (c) it gives left-wing voters something specific to be happy about (d) it's gradual so we have time to do it carefully and and (e) the cost of compensation to shareholders is zero. What's not to like?
Hmmmm. A bit of wishful thinking there Nick. Infrastructure and Investment sit with HMG de facto as do all issues of rail infrastucture if we want to put more in via Crossrail or HS2, Train Operating Companies (TOC) aren't stopping us. Labour didn't put that much into the network 97-10 despite spending a wall of money on other things. As for getting the franchises for free, I'd be less optimistic the TOCs do have certain assets and rights and it's not as if they're doing nothing so there will be a cost even if it's just buying computer systems, and since several of the TOCs are foreign owned eg Deutsche Bahn it will inevitably have a European angle.
Longer term though is a future government ready to put up with the inevitable crap which will follows rail travel when things go wrong ? Then there's nowhere to hide, the buck stops at the PMs desk.
Mr. Grandiose, but if one is in the country that is the same as failing to leave it, surely?
The crime attaches to an act or omission, rather than a status or state of affairs. The number of crimes based on a state of affairs (such as possession) are minimised. In R v Larsonneur, the decision was criticised, for example. So there a French woman (back in the 30s) was refused leave to remain in the UK, so travelled to Ireland. There she failed to successfully gain asylum or immigration status, so was deported to her last country of residence - the UK. When here, she was immediately arrested and charged, and found guilty, of being an alien without leave to remain.
Can the full, unedited tapes be published by the Sunday Times or would that too be considered 'libellous'. I'm not in full confidence of either party here, publishing the full tapes would surely be the best thing to see the TRUTH in all of this.
"As I said earlier, I don't find it offensive. So it's OK to be in this country illegally, Roger?"
I always think of you as the Aziz character in 'A Passage to India'. You have so much love for Tory Britain you refuse to be offended even when the offense is gross.
Happily Aziz finally saw the light (otherwise EM Forster wouldn't have had a story!)
Can the full, unedited tapes be published by the Sunday Times or would that too be considered 'libellous'. I'm not in full confidence of either party here, publishing the full tapes would surely be the best thing to see the TRUTH in all of this.
I assume both of them would prefer to forget it all. That the STimes got it so badly wrong is surprising. The damages are very significant.
Dylan Sharpe @dylsharpe Or 23% of readership. Guardian has lost 38% RT @sunny_hundal Nearly 700k Brits stopped buying the Sun over last 3yrs
Heard some gossip over drinks the other night: the Independent is selling 40,000 copies a day, the rest are given away in some form, turned into kitty litter, etc.
40,000
It is basically dead, already. The Guardian is heading in the same direction: with no paywall to make up for the horrific attrition of dead tree readers.
The Guardian's no-paywall but expensive website doesn't seem to be competing well against the Mail's no paywall version. I gather that the latter is actually making money and still actively recruiting for more bods across the Atlantic.
That the Sun is going paywall as of tomorrow speaks volumes - the NOTW did it before they were shut down, £2 a week is a tiny sum for most readers - I pay for the Times for that.
"Labour have nothing to gain by attacking the Conservatives from the left, on immigration."
On the contrary they have everything to gain by hammering away at the theme the Tories are still the 'nasty party'. A fear that cost them an outright victory last time and a theme that is likely to be even more salient this time. Clegg got nearly a quarter of the vote by being the 'nice party'. I just hope Ed has the bottle....
Attacks on the "nasty party" resonate with floating voters when they are attacks on the Conservatives for being too close to rich people. They don't resonate with floating voters when they are attacks on the Conservatives for being too tough on immigrants.
The Conservatives' enduring problem is that they're seen as the party of the rich. Labour's enduring problem is that they're seen as the party of immigrants and benefit claimants.
They do resonate with some floating voters. The point about such voters, surely, is that they do not have the entrenched views of the committed. In our FPTP system it's all about nuanced calculation. How many votes will you lose by speaking out on this, staying quiet about that? The Tories have clearly done their sums and made their call - they see most benefit from embracing right wing populism. And without doubt it has paid dividends. What it has not done, though, is eat into Labour's opinion poll support, which has been at 35+ since the summer of 2010. To win the next GE - probably even to be the largest party - the Tories have to change that. The economy could be the key; but it may also be the case that there just are around 35% of centre left voters in England who will never vote Tory under any circumstances and who will not consider voting LD anymore either.
It's a pity about the Independent because when it was launched in 1986 it was a genuine attempt to be a non-partisan quality newspaper. A lot of pretty good writers were on the staff for the first few years, (from what I've read).
@NickPalmer - Whilst those are fair points, the counter argument is that the British state has been shown, time after time, to be absolutely rubbish at running enterprises. It's true that the folk memory of just how awful such enterprises were is beginning to fade a bit, but it might well be revived by New British Rail.
As regards the politics, a lot would depend on whether you could persuade the unions to hide their glee at what they would undoubtedly regard as a gravy train for their members.
For those who are too young or have lost their memory.
Yesterday's ComRes poll was yet another survey putting Con + UKIP on 46%.
Slight problem that they're not standing on a joint ticket.
It's an illustration of how the broadly Eurosceptic parties are faring.
perhaps, but as long as that vote is split between two parties under FPTP then only the larger share counts ( allowing for some small local variations ). We're now back to how much does Farage really want to have a vote. My guess is he'd rather hold out for 100% of what he wants and not get it, rather than take 90% now. So he'll push himself further away from his end objective whilst muttering platitudes that he'll be back when the whole system has collapsed. But it won't, historically the UK has had gradual changes not step changes.
It's a pity about the Independent because when it was launched in 1986 it was a genuine attempt to be a non-partisan quality newspaper. A lot of pretty good writers were on the staff for the first few years, (from what I've read).
As a teenager, I was astounded by the partisan nature of the DT and Guardian so forked out pocket-money to support the fledgling Indy.
And then it went all up itself because it was above Royal stories.
And then it turned into the dead seagull Greenpeace paper.
I have little time for it. Not sacking Johann Hari for plagiarism and replacing him with Owen Jones just sums it up.
Even if one thinks that the free market is wonderful, the rail franchising system is ridiculous. Is it a free market? No. It's largely a system of local monopolies, inevitably as the tracks are congested. Does it encourage long-term thinking? No - on the contrary, it punishes it as franchises near their end and the franchisee doesn't know if they'll get renewed. Does it encourage long-distance travel? No, it makes it messier with cross-company bookings. Does the Treasury benefit from the money paid for the bids? No, because we give it back, and more, in subsidies. I'm all for a free market in consumer goods - who needs a British Rice Krispies state monopoly? But this system is simply rubbish.
Taking them back into public ownership as the franchises expire has several merits: (a) it has public support (b) it puts issues of infrastructure investment and subsidy into the public domain where they belong (c) it gives left-wing voters something specific to be happy about (d) it's gradual so we have time to do it carefully and and (e) the cost of compensation to shareholders is zero. What's not to like?
A couple of questions for you Nick:
1) If the railways had been kept under national ownership (i.e. Europe had not got involved), do you think that they would be in a better, or worse, state than they are now? In particular, would BR have been able to get the funding needed for traffic growth between 1997 and 2010 from central government, or would it have diverted it towards schools and hospitals?
2) Would you be willing to consider another scheme aside from nationalisation - for instance a concessionary system that is already used in some places in the UK?
BR had many failings and was shrinking. The present system has many failings and is growing. Blindly bleating for one or the other for reasons of political theory is stupid.
We need a system that works. If that is nationalisation: good. If it is changes to the current system: good. But it needs to work.
The Independent is basically being replaced by the extremely successful "i". I can't see the serious version lasting much longer when the 5-minute version for progressives on a short bus ride is, sadly, much more popular.
Cruddas not happy at being cut adrift by Cameron. Treated very differently from Camerons public school chums Cruddas comes from a normal background which explains Camerons behaviour and contrasts starkly with his treatment of fellow Chums
Didn't labour jump on this bandwagon at the time ? Apology from labour ?
I assume they do - but are these voters in say the Midlands et al where they may make a difference to the result?
Upsetting metropolitan types has no traction here.
If you are a floating voter of immigrant stock it may well resonate. In some midland constituencies such people will be key. I think - though I may be wrong - that according to YouGov a slight majority has no problem with these posters, but around 40% do. Dismissing that 40% as "metropolitan types" is a bit of a stretch.
I assume they do - but are these voters in say the Midlands et al where they may make a difference to the result?
Upsetting metropolitan types has no traction here.
If you are a floating voter of immigrant stock it may well resonate. In some midland constituencies such people will be key. I think - though I may be wrong - that according to YouGov a slight majority has no problem with these posters, but around 40% do. Dismissing that 40% as "metropolitan types" is a bit of a stretch.
The metro vote isn't largely present in the Mids et al. That's why Kippers are doing so well there.
And its 47:41. But 61% don't think they're racist.
I commute on South West trains and the other day they published a breakdown of the causes of their delays (something that would have been utterly unheard of in the BR days).
More than 50% of the delays were caused by problems with signals and track.
Who owns and operates the signals and the track????
The dead hand of the state.
You can sense the train companies are tearing their hair out. It wouldn;t surprise me if its being done deliberately in some cases to advance the cause for nationalisation, which the track people think is just around the corner.
Just a couple more years and we can go back to running the railways for ourselves, instead of those pesky tory voting commuters.
"Who owns and operates the signals and the track????
The dead hand of the state.
You can sense the train companies are tearing their hair out. It wouldn;t surprise me if its being done deliberately in some cases to advance the cause for nationalisation, which the track people think is just around the corner."
You have noticed that we have a Conservative led coalition, are you saying the Conservative Party as the government of the day are trying to deliberately knacker it up to force re-nationalisation?
Dylan Sharpe @dylsharpe Or 23% of readership. Guardian has lost 38% RT @sunny_hundal Nearly 700k Brits stopped buying the Sun over last 3yrs
Heard some gossip over drinks the other night: the Independent is selling 40,000 copies a day, the rest are given away in some form, turned into kitty litter, etc.
40,000
It is basically dead, already. The Guardian is heading in the same direction: with no paywall to make up for the horrific attrition of dead tree readers.
Hasn't the Independent basically committed harikari by launching the i, which from the last figures I saw, outsold it by about 3:1 (which will be considerably more if the real figure for the Indy is 40k).
£2 a week is a tiny sum for most readers - I pay for the Times for that.
You're joking. Over £100 a year to read the Sun online? Most people see it as a throwaway rag, albeit sometimes entertaining. Can't see much uptake.
And your prejudice is showing.
To buy a copy of the Sun costs a lot more than 28p a day. It's also the most popular paper.
Nothing to do with prejudice. Buying a newspaper and reading a website are quite different activities. People buy the Sun to read throughout the day and copies get shared, especially in workplaces.
Quite different to reading on mobile devices or at a computer. And the people who buy it don't take it seriously either, not enough to sign up for a recurring £8.67 per month charge.
I assume they do - but are these voters in say the Midlands et al where they may make a difference to the result?
Upsetting metropolitan types has no traction here.
If you are a floating voter of immigrant stock it may well resonate. In some midland constituencies such people will be key. I think - though I may be wrong - that according to YouGov a slight majority has no problem with these posters, but around 40% do. Dismissing that 40% as "metropolitan types" is a bit of a stretch.
First- or second- generation immigrants can be among the most supportive of measures against illegal immigration. For one thing, increased racial tension tends to be felt by them before anyone else; for another, it'd be unsurprising if they weren't a bit miffed by seeing others jumping the queue they had to wait in.
Re train nationalisation. I notice NIck Palmer leaves out improving customer service in his advantages of re-nationalisation. This to me has been the big advantage of privatisation im my experience anyway- I travel a lot on trains and did so in the BR days . Trains are rarely late or cancelled on the lines I use (east Midland to London usually) and staff seem so much nicer . BR staff tended to have a 'you are fortunate to be allowed to use OUR trains' attitude
Yes, that Andrew Mitchell certainly went to an inner city state comp....
You're becoming a caricature of a parody of a joke. Wise up. Or rather grow up. can you do that?
Don't mock tim. He was the first to notice that Theresa May's diabetes related weight loss was some form of leadership campaign. You can't buy insightful analysis like that.
I think that's complete rubbish. Recent immigrants are the most implacably opposed to more immigration.
That would make sense, in that to the extent that there's evidence of immigration reducing the wages of people already living in developed countries it tends to be of existing immigrants, IIUC.
I assume they do - but are these voters in say the Midlands et al where they may make a difference to the result?
Upsetting metropolitan types has no traction here.
If you are a floating voter of immigrant stock it may well resonate. In some midland constituencies such people will be key. I think - though I may be wrong - that according to YouGov a slight majority has no problem with these posters, but around 40% do. Dismissing that 40% as "metropolitan types" is a bit of a stretch.
The metro vote isn't largely present in the Mids et al. That's why Kippers are doing so well there.
And its 47:41. But 61% don't think they're racist.
I doubt 41% of YouGov respondents can be labelled "metropolitan types". As you have observed many times, you can be anti-immigrant without being racist. UKIP have done well in parts of the East Midlands, but i don't think they've been as successful in the west or in the big cities - Brum, Coventry, Nottingham, Leicester etc. and there are pretty "metropolitan" enclaves in many midland constituencies, particularly around the universities - North Leamington (Warwick), and Edgbaston, Harborne, Selly Oak (Birmingham), Oxford etc.
Like BT Sports, it will be interesting to see the uptake
The newspaper group which owns The Sun and The Times has struck a deal to show Premier League highlights online and on mobiles and tablets. From next season, News International has the rights to show clips of all 380 games on any day of the week.
Tory Peter Cruddas quits after donor access claims
Labour demands
Labour said it wanted the names of Tory donors who have visited government property - including Downing Street and Chequers - and of those who have made submissions to the Downing Street policy unit, to be published.
Labour deputy chairman Tom Watson said: "It's David Cameron that hosts the dinner parties, and people would expect him to explain how - when people have given a quarter of a million pounds - how those dinner parties are held."
Labour MP David Miliband said: "The idea that policy is for sale is grotesque.
"This goes to the heart of the question of the relationship between a party and the government... It crashes through the lines that should exist between party and government."
I assume they do - but are these voters in say the Midlands et al where they may make a difference to the result?
Upsetting metropolitan types has no traction here.
If you are a floating voter of immigrant stock it may well resonate. In some midland constituencies such people will be key. I think - though I may be wrong - that according to YouGov a slight majority has no problem with these posters, but around 40% do. Dismissing that 40% as "metropolitan types" is a bit of a stretch.
First- or second- generation immigrants can be among the most supportive of measures against illegal immigration. For one thing, increased racial tension tends to be felt by them before anyone else; for another, it'd be unsurprising if they weren't a bit miffed by seeing others jumping the queue they had to wait in.
It would be. But it would be equally unsurprising if many felt that the posters were aimed at people for whom immigration per se is a problem.
BR staff tended to have a 'you are fortunate to be allowed to use OUR trains' attitude
There is no comparison between now and BR. on South West trains we have a system that tells you not only if the train will be late, but BY HOW MANY MINUTES.
In the BR days you could be left waiting on the platform for a train that might never even arrive, with no attempt whatever to keep you informed.
Ditto on the train. Nowadays the guard always tells you on the intercom if the train will be late, AND WHY. In the BR days you got silence. And as I say when the train is late, its generally the fault of state owned railtrack.
I think a few labour people better try commuting before they start pushing this policy. In any commutable constituency its a very very tough sell, I reckon.
Guilty - its an anecdote. I've neither seen polling for or against on this so anecdote is all I can rely on.
I have been trying to kick the habit, just one final fix. Its my last one, I'm giving up after this. I can stop anecdoting any time I like. It's just recreational. Just to wind down.
It's a pity about the Independent because when it was launched in 1986 it was a genuine attempt to be a non-partisan quality newspaper. A lot of pretty good writers were on the staff for the first few years, (from what I've read).
As a teenager, I was astounded by the partisan nature of the DT and Guardian so forked out pocket-money to support the fledgling Indy.
And then it went all up itself because it was above Royal stories.
And then it turned into the dead seagull Greenpeace paper.
I have little time for it. Not sacking Johann Hari for plagiarism and replacing him with Owen Jones just sums it up.
I bought the Indy daily for about 10 years. They had many interesting columnists from a range of perspectives for most of those years.
It was the dead seagulls on the front page that finally did for it in our house although for me personally the defection of Jeremy Warner to the Telegraph was a blow.
BR staff tended to have a 'you are fortunate to be allowed to use OUR trains' attitude
There is no comparison between now and BR. on South West trains we have a system that tells you not only if the train will be late, but BY HOW MANY MINUTES.
In the BR days you could be left waiting on the platform for a train that might never even arrive, with no attempt whatever to keep you informed.
Ditto on the train. Nowadays the guard always tells you on the intercom if the train will be late, AND WHY. In the BR days you got silence. And as I say when the train is late, its generally the fault of state owned railtrack.
I think a few labour people better try commuting before they start pushing this policy. In any commutable constituency its a very very tough sell, I reckon.
I am not sure that privatisation is wholly responsible for advances in information technology.
That said some of what you say still holds true. The terms and conditions on lost season tickets are a hangover from the old days. If you lose your £4000 season ticket twice that is your tough luck. You have let the system down. As Oyster cards prove there is no reason for this to be the case.
I assume they do - but are these voters in say the Midlands et al where they may make a difference to the result?
Upsetting metropolitan types has no traction here.
If you are a floating voter of immigrant stock it may well resonate. In some midland constituencies such people will be key. I think - though I may be wrong - that according to YouGov a slight majority has no problem with these posters, but around 40% do. Dismissing that 40% as "metropolitan types" is a bit of a stretch.
The metro vote isn't largely present in the Mids et al. That's why Kippers are doing so well there.
And its 47:41. But 61% don't think they're racist.
I doubt 41% of YouGov respondents can be labelled "metropolitan types". As you have observed many times, you can be anti-immigrant without being racist. UKIP have done well in parts of the East Midlands, but i don't think they've been as successful in the west or in the big cities - Brum, Coventry, Nottingham, Leicester etc. and there are pretty "metropolitan" enclaves in many midland constituencies, particularly around the universities - North Leamington (Warwick), and Edgbaston, Harborne, Selly Oak (Birmingham), Oxford etc.
UKIP did very well in Dudley and Stoke at the last Euro election.
Plenty of answers to Nick already (one of the pleasures of having a thinking left-winger on here), but space for one more, I hope.
The pseudo-competition within the rail sector comes from the franchising. There is always the danger that a firm which is choosing to withdraw may run down its service but even then, they'd have to be careful about brand cross-contamination. Those that want renewed franchises have every incentive to improve services for the great majority of their term. (I would agree that some of the early franchises were too short - the minimum should be 15 years to allow investment returns to accrue).
If the privatised system is so rubbish, why is it that passenger numbers have been rising ever since (near enough) privatisation, and passenger-miles are at record numbers, IIRC. This, after decades of defensive decline under BR. The operating companies and Railtrack invested massively and that's had its effect (admittedly, Railtrack taking its eye off the ball of bog-standard maintenance was a severe failure but that was a human rather than systemic issue - any business which underinvested in its core operation should have known it was gambling with its future).
Long distance travel within the UK is a doddle. You book your ticket and travel. I've never had a problem with cross-company travel. The biggest argument against it is that it can be difficult to identify the cheapest tickets when trying to buy in advance.
The strongest argument against renationalisation however is that the state always skews priorities, decisions get taken for political reasons and long-term investment gets reduced. In theory, governments can plan for the long term; in practice, they rarely think far beyond the next election.
Rail privatisation wasn't the perfect example of how to move an industry from the public to the private sector (not least because it's not fully in the private sector given the franchising and subsidies). A better example would be telecoms. Rail could learn much from it.
Good debate this morning on how the public see the armed forces.
I must say I agreed with the interviewee who said most in the armed forces do not wished to be viewed as (or see themselves as) heroes nor do they expect of course to be discriminated against because of their job.
I am not one of these tories who love defence spending and think the armed forces are great and cringe everytime I hear the name of the charity 'help for heroes' . What a OTT patronising and dumb name imo -The British Legion is a far better name. I also did not attend the Armed forces day in my town of Nottingham recently on the basis that I could not realy see a distinction between that a old fashioned Moscow may day parade with tanks. Weapons that kill or indeed humans that may have to kill in their job are not really to be celebrated imo. They maybe are necessary and in that I can respect armd forces personall for the job they do without thinking they are heroes or wanting to see a machine gun or tank!
I hope others can be persuaded by the likes of the guy on Today this morning that to go OTT about soldiers (eithe in a good or bad way) is not the way it shoudl be in 2013.
Comments
Was that pasted from somewhere too ?
More projection than a multiplex cinema. You protest too much.
And it's Miss Withering to you.
I am still trying to come to terms with the shock that a Conservative politician said something bad about Labour in the Daily Telegraph. Thanks for making us all aware of it - we'd never have expected it otherwise.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/07/lord-ashcroft-as-peter-cruddas-wins-a-resounding-high-court-victory-against-the-sunday-times-the-par.html
It'd be interesting to see if anyone's tried to separate out the two effects.
As for the WCML upgrade: it was a mess. But the reasons are not just the franchise. The WCML was pretty worn out, and much of the infrastructure needed replacing. Where they went wrong was promising the operator a widescale upgrade, in terms of available paths, line speed and signalling system.
Both passenger and freight traffic (*) have increased massively since privatisation, reversing a long-term decline under BR. The growth has also been sustained through the recession. That may have happened without privatisation: however such growth requires vast investment, and the history of BR shows that permission for the necessary investment was slow to come from government. Indeed, the system only kept working because of some very competent managers. At least according to one person I've spoken to, the situation improved with sectorisation in the 1980s and less central control.
The jury is out on whether privatisation of the railways worked. Certainly, in terms of investment and traffic it did. However, there is a good case for nationalisation in some form, as long as access to investment is maintained. But such a move should be taken with extreme care.
(*) Freight traffic has increased despite a large drop in bulk traffic such as coal, AFAICR.
"Mr. Roger, I must point out to you that lots of British are actually non-white. And even lots of British people have 'foreign' accents."
That is my point. Over 90% of the population living in the UK don't have accents or non white faces so they know the vans aren't referring to them.
Of the one in ten who do only a tiny proportion will be here illegally but the rest will be tarred with the same brush.
"The Conservatives are making massive political mistakes."
My view is that Cameron and Osborne are doing much better (from a low starting point).
The view of the voters is that the Labour lead has dropped down, probably to 5% to 6% although ICM say there is no lead.
So if the Conservatives carry on down this parth the lefties, Labourites, SNP and Lib Dems will all be happy .... and so will I. On that happy note. Chins everyone.
It's the ICM Shy Tory coming out and almost proud. Over the next couple of years - they may become actually assertive.
This reminds me very much of 1979/83 when there was media horror about 'getting on your bike' and the public said Yes.
The argument from Cameron is that IF he can get UKIP down to 5%, that will leave him with a national share of 40% or so which might be an election-winning score. I suspect much of the ex-Tory UKIP share has already "come home" and it may be harder to squeeze out that vital 2-3% which might leave the Conservative vote share closer to the 2010 figure.
"Labour have nothing to gain by attacking the Conservatives from the left, on immigration."
On the contrary they have everything to gain by hammering away at the theme the Tories are still the 'nasty party'. A fear that cost them an outright victory last time and a theme that is likely to be even more salient this time. Clegg got nearly a quarter of the vote by being the 'nice party'. I just hope Ed has the bottle....
Taking them back into public ownership as the franchises expire has several merits: (a) it has public support (b) it puts issues of infrastructure investment and subsidy into the public domain where they belong (c) it gives left-wing voters something specific to be happy about (d) it's gradual so we have time to do it carefully and and (e) the cost of compensation to shareholders is zero. What's not to like?
"As I said earlier, I don't find it offensive. So it's OK to be in this country illegally, Roger?"
I always think of you as the Aziz character in 'A Passage to India'. You have so much love for Tory Britain you refuse to be offended even when the offense is gross.
Happily Aziz finally saw the light (otherwise EM Forster wouldn't have had a story!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUTWjZblNzI
Next you'll be comparing Dr Sunil with Uncle Tom.
(a) Going back to BR is going to be popular? I really doubt it. It would be a mistake to confuse frustration with the current mess with a nostalgia for public ownership.
(b) I just plainly disagree with that. We had decades where the rail service was starved of capital investment by governments of both parties because it was a lot easier to cut that than schools and hospitals. Incentivised private capital investment is the right way forward.
(c) True but it gives a very backward looking message to floating voters.
(d) Don't really understand this point. Trying to integrate bits of the network over time looks more complicated to me. How many times will the management require reorganised?
(e) True, although Branson will probably find a way!
As a north Briton my frustrations with rail are basically the absurd pricing structures. The government needs to sort this out in the same way as they are for fuel companies. In southern England capacity is clearly a bigger issue but we don't see that much up here. We need longer franchises, better regulation and simplification of prices. It really isn't rocket science.
The Conservatives' enduring problem is that they're seen as the party of the rich. Labour's enduring problem is that they're seen as the party of immigrants and benefit claimants.
As regards the politics, a lot would depend on whether you could persuade the unions to hide their glee at what they would undoubtedly regard as a gravy train for their members.
We should celebrate the 15th birthday of the national minimum wage with an immediate increase of £1.50 an hour.
Longer term though is a future government ready to put up with the inevitable crap which will follows rail travel when things go wrong ? Then there's nowhere to hide, the buck stops at the PMs desk.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQfx7yeCQAA7wFt.jpg:large
Dylan Sharpe @dylsharpe
Or 23% of readership. Guardian has lost 38% RT @sunny_hundal Nearly 700k Brits stopped buying the Sun over last 3yrs
Roger,
If Fawlty Towers comes back, have you ever thought of auditioning for the part of the Major?
Sunil seems a very forgiving sort, though.
That the Sun is going paywall as of tomorrow speaks volumes - the NOTW did it before they were shut down, £2 a week is a tiny sum for most readers - I pay for the Times for that.
Earlier Sunny Hundal was wondering if she'd take the Labour whip....
Edit - BBC says Labour
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23519563#TWEET840342
"They do resonate with some floating voters"
I assume they do - but are these voters in say the Midlands et al where they may make a difference to the result?
Upsetting metropolitan types has no traction here.
British Rail Station Announcement from mid-1970s:
http://s9.last.fm/preview/124892089/397/0108856938/66/38245267.mp3
And then it went all up itself because it was above Royal stories.
And then it turned into the dead seagull Greenpeace paper.
I have little time for it. Not sacking Johann Hari for plagiarism and replacing him with Owen Jones just sums it up.
1) If the railways had been kept under national ownership (i.e. Europe had not got involved), do you think that they would be in a better, or worse, state than they are now? In particular, would BR have been able to get the funding needed for traffic growth between 1997 and 2010 from central government, or would it have diverted it towards schools and hospitals?
2) Would you be willing to consider another scheme aside from nationalisation - for instance a concessionary system that is already used in some places in the UK?
http://www.railhub2.co.uk/rh4/business/briefs/RHB_franchise.php
http://www.publicworld.org/files/larailenglish.pdf
BR had many failings and was shrinking. The present system has many failings and is growing. Blindly bleating for one or the other for reasons of political theory is stupid.
We need a system that works. If that is nationalisation: good. If it is changes to the current system: good. But it needs to work.
BR didn't.
I nearly feel as much disdain for the architects of this as I do for the architects of the Michael Howard as Shylock posters.
I was once compared to a Sepoy who took part in Jallianwala Bagh massacre under General Dyer.
I took great pleasure in pointing out there were no Sepoys that took part in that outrage.
'twas the Gurkhas who participated.
61% didn't think they were racist
47% approved of them vs 41% that didn't
No VI group thought they were racist
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/30/majority-say-immigration-vans-not-racist/
For the PB cricket tipping team.
I have tickets for all five days of the third test.
I have an appalling record watching England.
They either lose or the weather is shite.
And rain is forecast for Manchester (but when isn't rain forecast for Manchester?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation
Can't see much uptake.
Put it this way, you could imagine Phil Woolas approving these vans. And that's not a good thing.
And its 47:41. But 61% don't think they're racist.
http://www.politicshome.com/
Is the circular firing squad all part of "on the front foot during the recess" campaign?
To buy a copy of the Sun costs a lot more than 28p a day. It's also the most popular paper.
More than 50% of the delays were caused by problems with signals and track.
Who owns and operates the signals and the track????
The dead hand of the state.
You can sense the train companies are tearing their hair out. It wouldn;t surprise me if its being done deliberately in some cases to advance the cause for nationalisation, which the track people think is just around the corner.
Just a couple more years and we can go back to running the railways for ourselves, instead of those pesky tory voting commuters.
F8ck 'em.
You're becoming a caricature of a parody of a joke. Wise up. Or rather grow up. can you do that?
1 Ashley Fox MEP
2 Julie Girling MEP
3 James Cracknell (the former rowing champion)
4 Georgina Butler
5 Sophie Swire
6 Melissa Maynard
Tories currently have 3 seats in the region.
Good. When being a bouncer is regulated but a PI isn't is just weird.
I think that's complete rubbish. Recent immigrants are the most implacably opposed to more immigration.
When I got driven into workyears ago the cabbies who really used to rail against those bl88dy immigrants were of algerian and nigerian stock.
The dead hand of the state.
You can sense the train companies are tearing their hair out. It wouldn;t surprise me if its being done deliberately in some cases to advance the cause for nationalisation, which the track people think is just around the corner."
You have noticed that we have a Conservative led coalition, are you saying the Conservative Party as the government of the day are trying to deliberately knacker it up to force re-nationalisation?
Quite different to reading on mobile devices or at a computer. And the people who buy it don't take it seriously either, not enough to sign up for a recurring £8.67 per month charge.
Like I said, can't see much uptake.
Tweet4Labour @Tweet4Labour
Brilliant exposure of SNP fake Labour 4 Independence dirty tricks from @blairmcdougall pic.twitter.com/sQEc5hWYaa < Nailed
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQgBHrrCQAE_gyL.jpg:large
Don't mock tim. He was the first to notice that Theresa May's diabetes related weight loss was some form of leadership campaign. You can't buy insightful analysis like that.
But is there any polling evidence for it?
NO I'm saying the state track operator is dragging its feet massively on performance to make the private train companies look bad.
No matter how good the trains are, they can't run without the rails and the signals.
The latter are operated by the government.
Like BT Sports, it will be interesting to see the uptake
The newspaper group which owns The Sun and The Times has struck a deal to show Premier League highlights online and on mobiles and tablets.
From next season, News International has the rights to show clips of all 380 games on any day of the week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21183426
Labour demands
Labour said it wanted the names of Tory donors who have visited government property - including Downing Street and Chequers - and of those who have made submissions to the Downing Street policy unit, to be published.
Labour deputy chairman Tom Watson said: "It's David Cameron that hosts the dinner parties, and people would expect him to explain how - when people have given a quarter of a million pounds - how those dinner parties are held."
Labour MP David Miliband said: "The idea that policy is for sale is grotesque.
"This goes to the heart of the question of the relationship between a party and the government... It crashes through the lines that should exist between party and government."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17503116
Labour apology ?
[face_shrug]
There is no comparison between now and BR. on South West trains we have a system that tells you not only if the train will be late, but BY HOW MANY MINUTES.
In the BR days you could be left waiting on the platform for a train that might never even arrive, with no attempt whatever to keep you informed.
Ditto on the train. Nowadays the guard always tells you on the intercom if the train will be late, AND WHY. In the BR days you got silence. And as I say when the train is late, its generally the fault of state owned railtrack.
I think a few labour people better try commuting before they start pushing this policy. In any commutable constituency its a very very tough sell, I reckon.
Guilty - its an anecdote. I've neither seen polling for or against on this so anecdote is all I can rely on.
I have been trying to kick the habit, just one final fix. Its my last one, I'm giving up after this. I can stop anecdoting any time I like. It's just recreational. Just to wind down.
1. Jacqueline Foster MEP
2. Saj Karim MEP
3. Kevin Beatty
4. Deborah Dunleavy
5. Joe Barker
6. Daniel Hamilton
7. Chris Whiteside
8. James Walsh
Con won 3 seats in 2009
It was the dead seagulls on the front page that finally did for it in our house although for me personally the defection of Jeremy Warner to the Telegraph was a blow.
That said some of what you say still holds true. The terms and conditions on lost season tickets are a hangover from the old days. If you lose your £4000 season ticket twice that is your tough luck. You have let the system down. As Oyster cards prove there is no reason for this to be the case.
Plenty of answers to Nick already (one of the pleasures of having a thinking left-winger on here), but space for one more, I hope.
The pseudo-competition within the rail sector comes from the franchising. There is always the danger that a firm which is choosing to withdraw may run down its service but even then, they'd have to be careful about brand cross-contamination. Those that want renewed franchises have every incentive to improve services for the great majority of their term. (I would agree that some of the early franchises were too short - the minimum should be 15 years to allow investment returns to accrue).
If the privatised system is so rubbish, why is it that passenger numbers have been rising ever since (near enough) privatisation, and passenger-miles are at record numbers, IIRC. This, after decades of defensive decline under BR. The operating companies and Railtrack invested massively and that's had its effect (admittedly, Railtrack taking its eye off the ball of bog-standard maintenance was a severe failure but that was a human rather than systemic issue - any business which underinvested in its core operation should have known it was gambling with its future).
Long distance travel within the UK is a doddle. You book your ticket and travel. I've never had a problem with cross-company travel. The biggest argument against it is that it can be difficult to identify the cheapest tickets when trying to buy in advance.
The strongest argument against renationalisation however is that the state always skews priorities, decisions get taken for political reasons and long-term investment gets reduced. In theory, governments can plan for the long term; in practice, they rarely think far beyond the next election.
Rail privatisation wasn't the perfect example of how to move an industry from the public to the private sector (not least because it's not fully in the private sector given the franchising and subsidies). A better example would be telecoms. Rail could learn much from it.
I must say I agreed with the interviewee who said most in the armed forces do not wished to be viewed as (or see themselves as) heroes nor do they expect of course to be discriminated against because of their job.
I am not one of these tories who love defence spending and think the armed forces are great and cringe everytime I hear the name of the charity 'help for heroes' . What a OTT patronising and dumb name imo -The British Legion is a far better name. I also did not attend the Armed forces day in my town of Nottingham recently on the basis that I could not realy see a distinction between that a old fashioned Moscow may day parade with tanks. Weapons that kill or indeed humans that may have to kill in their job are not really to be celebrated imo. They maybe are necessary and in that I can respect armd forces personall for the job they do without thinking they are heroes or wanting to see a machine gun or tank!
I hope others can be persuaded by the likes of the guy on Today this morning that to go OTT about soldiers (eithe in a good or bad way) is not the way it shoudl be in 2013.
https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/362535822249046017/photo/1