The railway won't cost anything, just let the contracts run out. The NHS will probably go through the same process. The questions should center on water/mail
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
The railway won't cost anything, just let the contracts run out. The NHS will probably go through the same process. The questions should center on water/mail
National Grid alone is a cool £40bil.
I haven't read the published manifesto but in the draft, the plan was more to set up new nationalised competitors in each region rather than renationalise the existing ones. But they did want "control" of the National Grid, which has a market cap of about £40bn I think.
You still have to run the thing though.
How long are the contracts though?
Laura KuenssbergVerified account @bbclaurak 2h2 hours ago
Corbyn's team says don't need to be included because liabilities off set by new assets
Laura KuenssbergVerified account @bbclaurak 2h2 hours ago
None of Labour's big proposed nationalisations have got numbers against them in manifesto costings
Aberconwy, Tory majority of 4k so I have my doubts.
Like the east coast mainline?
How long are the contracts though?
Corbyn's team says don't need to be included because liabilities off set by new assets
None of Labour's big proposed nationalisations have got numbers against them in manifesto costings
Does it matter how long the contracts are?
We're talking about everything, no? Stations, commuter lines, upgrades, higher salaries, pensions e.t.c. And that's before you begin to improve public transport in those places who don't really have much (not that Labour talks about the latter much).
Network Rail already own the track and stations, it's owned by the government
I like the bus stuff a lot more than the train stuff.
What a missed opportunity.Owen Smith then ?
The train stuff gets attention because it make sense to everyone, but it has to be a long term policy, some of those franchises are not up until 2026. The bus one is more practical, and it could be argued, have a bigger, faster effect simply because in many placed, buses are in a worse state than the railways.
Overall though, whether you agree with labours approach or not, I think its healthy to have very different offers on the table. Milliband and Brown's 'austerity like the tories but we will be sad about it' nonsense helped no one at all.
As an aside, there are a couple of videos of corbyn in Leeds and hebdon bridge with thousands out to see him. Leeds its expected, but hebdon has a tory MP, it surprised me. The contrast between him and may doing the election campaign stuff is pretty stark I have to say.
Attlee was proclaimed as unelectable as little as a month before the election where he won by a landslide by none other than Churchill himself, along with the times, mail and usual suspects. I am not claiming corbyn is anything like that, but this is nothing new for those who believe power is their birthright.
Well, it depends on whether Corbyn is planning to effect the nationalisation quickly or ride out a 10 year contract, by which time he wouldn't be in power anyway.
Labour was leading in the polls before '45, and Attlee had great credibility from serving in the cabinet. Churchill's blathering about a British Gestapo got laughed at. Attlee was not a lefty for his time.
It's difficult though- rural bus services are always going to be shite unless you subsidise them heavily for the handful of people that actually use them.
And Labour's position on the benefit freeze remains uncertain. A reversal certainly hasn't been costed. Renationalisations and tuition fees really more important? Really?
Bit hard to cost given the timelines and it would involve negotiations. Its still the most comprehensive costings the party has produced no?
It makes the pledge of it being a "fully costed" programme laughable. That, allied to huge spending increases elsewhere and hypothetical taxation, is not good.
But as I said after the leak, it's basically to drive the core vote and on that front probably does its job. Other than the benefit freeze stuff which is unconscionable given the flak he and his support gave to the rest of the party.
I'd assume they want the contracts to run down
I wonder what @Dobba thinks of the benefits freeze considering his obsession with the "abstainers".
But buying them out will be pricey, plus they'll need to acquire the rolling stock leases, presumably.
They will have to pay billions to the contract holders in that case.
"Not ideal". Maybe followed by "Owen Smith though".
Bloody auto correct. That should be I'd assume they will let's the contracts run down
See above
It's shite and proof that the party is still full of absolute Tory wannabe cnuts. Next? Was I supposed to go in a Dan Hodges/centrist strop and vote for the Lib Dems or something?
Love abstainers being in quotes like it's up for debate, by the way.
Last edited:
123456
Last edited:
You miss the point and to be honest i shouldn't have gotten involved.
I am pretty resigned to the realisation that this nation will vote May in, the general public really are that fecking stupid. So i have no choice. I give up.
Wait, so you're happy with the benefit freeze remaining?So bitter
Its as good as Labour have done trying to prove their workings for some time.
123456
Last edited:
As I mentioned though, this would take at least part of the nationalisation programme outside of the term of the next parliament, which would end up being a fiasco.
No im not but the fact you're only bothered because Corbyn supporters previously moaned about it. That isn't the unconscionable part ffs.
Was bailing out the banks included in costings?
100% of the rolling stock is owned by private companies and leased to the franchisees, the whole lot was sold by the Tories at massive discount to their mates, and would need to be bought back. Freight companies too aren't franchises, they're fully private and would need to be bought.
Re-nationalising the railway may or may not be a good idea, but anyone proposing it should at least have put out a professional estimate of the cost to enable people to decide. Not doing so leaves voters thinking the idea is amateurish and not to be trusted.
I find using that stuff as an electioneering tool in leadership contests pretty unconscionable if I'm honest. If you're going to crucify the rest of the party for being amoral cnuts for not doing something, you'd better be fecking sure you actually do something about it given half a chance.
But yes, you're correct. It's also unconscionable to be prioritising stuff like 11bn bungs to the middle class instead of it. I should have been clearer.
What the feck are people on about it making sense to re-privatise the trains? The last time the Government was in charge they were shite, that's why they could wait to find some idiot to sell them off too.
The Government are awful at running services.
They make profits because they are run as businesses, not as wasteful Government bodies.
The Government are awful at running services.
They make profits because they are run as businesses, not as wasteful Government bodies.
I don't know where you're kicking about, but they are shite near me as of right now.