East Coast Main Line, so successful the Tories flogged it cause it made them look nad
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
East Coast Main Line, so successful the Tories flogged it cause it made them look nad
I should say I don't think Kuenssberg is actually a secret tory propagandist trying to take down the Labour Party, more that she is a bit of rubbish journalist.
what's nad?
It's being called a tax and spend manifesto everywhere, because it is one. From what I've seen Labour have been embracing that.
Nope... just looking after the nuclear codes
Journalist of the year I think you'll find. She's an award winning bullshit artist.
You're right on this one. A rare example of professional railway managers being allowed to run a railway without political interference. I don't know much about the health service but I've always wondered how they would get on if the managers were allowed to manage instead of being reorganised for political reasons every four years or so. I realise organisations need to change, I'm just not sure politicians are always the people to dictate what it is.
What seem like two media blunders, blue and red.
&
Union leader’s comments overshadow £50bn Labour manifesto pledge
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-proposes-45p-income-tax-above-80000
Not sure how the Tory candidate thought that a 'no comment' would pass muster there.
&
Union leader’s comments overshadow £50bn Labour manifesto pledge
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-proposes-45p-income-tax-above-80000
Not sure how the Tory candidate thought that a 'no comment' would pass muster there.
What seem like two media blunders, blue and red.
&
Union leader’s comments overshadow £50bn Labour manifesto pledge
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-proposes-45p-income-tax-above-80000
Not sure how the Tory candidate thought that a 'no comment' would pass muster there.
What's her constituency like? Can probably almost guarantee her own opinion goes against whatever the preference was there.
Hove, near DOTA country. Labour incumbent with a 1,000ish majority if memory serves.
She's the woman who claimed she healed a deaf man's hearing by putting her hands on the man’s ears and saying “Be healed in Jesus’ name.”
And from looking around, it was a solid Remain vote. I wonder what she voted for, then...
Kuenssberg works for BBC so she has to be neutral in her reporting. Yet her article doesn't actually differ itself from the tory attack piece,the only reference to taxes is the amount Labour will raise and more importantly no mention of who is going to be taxed, no mention of where Labour will be spending the money or really any polices. And also this is just days after Kuenssberg said that it was embarrassing that a Labour MP had quit during the election, only to have people point out to her that the MP in question had been done for texting kids, wife beating and has now being questioned by the police over rape allegations.
It's piss poor stuff from Kuenssberg.
It's just fecking irritating that we are even talking about a BBC journalist.
Hopefully that boost's Peter Kyle's chances a little.
This is both awful and amazing.
This is pure Burgon, he's an absolute artist
We don't have nuclear codes!!!!!!
Seriously, unlike America, we do not have nuclear codes. All of our nuclear submarines are capable of acting autonomously - without waiting on any command from London. In fact, even more bizarrely, when the UK nuclear weapons go to America for maintenance, they sit alongside the US ones (which do require codes from the White House), but anyone could theoretically detonate ours.
Anyway, as Corbyn is "no first use" I wouldn't worry about that.
Also, Piers Morgan is an idiot.
Businesses are run to make profit so shareholders and investors can pocket the money from the dividends. The drive to increase profits often means a squeeze in terms of quality which we see happening in the railways. So fares rise so the company can increase its profit margin not to increase investment.
I've not done the costings but removing the need to pay out dividends when renationalising the railways should free up a massive chunk of money to use for the investment that's so badly needed in the system.
Neither has Jeremy, and unfortunately he hasn't even pretended to, which was my point.
But yes, when Thatcher sold our national assets because she had to pay for the extra three million unemployed that were needed to put the lower classes back in their place then she didn't care what it would cost long-term, I agree with that.
Nick Robinson is doing his best to keep up with her.
I have a thing for Emily Maitlis. And Laura Kuenssberg as well.
yeah but come on the Tories don't give a feck about that mate, that's why they seem to think that £7.50 an hour is a liveable living wage
I said this to my missus earlier. Corbyn is getting big crowds out to hear what he has to say. But, in reality, It is only a small percentage of the actual population of the places he is visiting.
You know it doesn't matter what it would cost in the short term to do some of the renationalisations that Jeremy wants because in the long term they woul bring in profits which will be reinvested into the system to improve service and once that's done then profits can be used for other things like paying any borrowing that may be needed. As one of the largest economies in the world we can't just continue to have this fear of debt as a compromise for poor service across the board.
The biggest problem with rail, utilities etc is that they often are run by foreign companies who have no vested interest in the United Kingdom other than pure profit. Arriva for example which runs a lot of train and bus services among others is owned by Deutsche Ban which is wholly owned by the German state. Now why would Germany want to improve service while it's profits suffer?
These being core services for the public should mean that they are owned by the public regardless of the short term cost to take them back because in the long run we will be much much better off.
Do you remember British rail... or British fail as it was often called?
It's the corbynista echo chamber
the vast majority of people who vote won't even know the bulk of the policies let alone attend political events and his approval ratings outside his core vote are terrible (worse than Paul nuttall last poll I saw).
So yeah forget the crowds it's going to be terrible for labour
Are you old enough to remember British Rail? There was certainly no investment in that for years before privatisation. It was embarrassingly bad. Nationalised railways are almost always money sinks.
The problem with rail privatisation was that it was never really privatisation. It was just giving government granted monopolies on each line. If there had been genuine competition it would be a different story entirely. Italy is the best example. Their level of service has gone through the roof with the open access to the high speed network.
So not only is Tim Farron against gay sex he's also against abortion. Well done on choosing that one Lib Dems.
123456
Last edited:
So you can see the folly of a rival party selecting an unelectable leader but not the folly of your own party doing the same. We see what we want to see I guess.
Electability isn't my issue here.
I see the folly of any modern political party appointing someone against gay sex and abortion.
I don't see the folly of appointing someone who is against nuking everyone.
Nationalizing companies is not a panacea for bad services (price + quality).
In the end it boils down to a structural problems that anyone should acknowledge: The quality of a national railway system depends on demand. The countries that have a great railway system usually have high utilization/demand for it (high Revenue Passenger Kilometers). The best two examples for this are Japan (private) and Swiss (mostly public ownership, but competition, because different federal bodies own different companies). Both have quite different models, but it works, because RPM/RPK is high. Creating some form of competition is also desirable, but difficult when demand isn’t high (competition can work both with public or private ownership).
The UK is in that regard (demand/efficiency) behind France or Germany. Consequently you shouldn’t expect a fantastic railway system. There is no magic bullet to solve this problem regardless of who owns and runs the damn thing. If you still want to have comfortable train connections into the smallest corners of the country you’d need to dump massive amounts of tax payer money into it.
The whole discussion about nationalization/privatization strikes me a bit of a straw man in this regard, because it is missing the point. If a party argues for massive changes in this area, they should explain how this is actually going to improve the situation. “Greedy companies are taking all the profits” is not a serious argument.
In the end it boils down to a structural problems that anyone should acknowledge: The quality of a national railway system depends on demand. The countries that have a great railway system usually have high utilization/demand for it (high Revenue Passenger Kilometers). The best two examples for this are Japan (private) and Swiss (mostly public ownership, but competition, because different federal bodies own different companies). Both have quite different models, but it works, because RPM/RPK is high. Creating some form of competition is also desirable, but difficult when demand isn’t high (competition can work both with public or private ownership).
The UK is in that regard (demand/efficiency) behind France or Germany. Consequently you shouldn’t expect a fantastic railway system. There is no magic bullet to solve this problem regardless of who owns and runs the damn thing. If you still want to have comfortable train connections into the smallest corners of the country you’d need to dump massive amounts of tax payer money into it.
The whole discussion about nationalization/privatization strikes me a bit of a straw man in this regard, because it is missing the point. If a party argues for massive changes in this area, they should explain how this is actually going to improve the situation. “Greedy companies are taking all the profits” is not a serious argument.
Fraser Nelson: "Corbyn is just a red Tory!"
Alright, he didn't quite say that
, but these graphs may surprise a few people. Which is closer to the point he's making.
Alright, he didn't quite say that
, but these graphs may surprise a few people. Which is closer to the point he's making. Fraser Nelson: "Corbyn is just a red Tory!"
Alright, he didn't quite say that
Interesting stuff.
Would like to see that first graph going back a lot further and overlaid with PMs to show a longer term view and how true the whole 'Labour overspends, Tories manage more sensibly' shtick is, as it is still so influential.
There are undoubtedly lessons to be learned from privatisation however you can't compare Rail now with British Rail which was run by the state during difficult times where there was recession, high unemployment, and the cost of manufacturing was far higher. Technological advances and booming economy have allowed for some investment and modernisation into rail not privatisation. Clearly it's not enough because it's all profit driven and people feel ripped off so the only way to ensure service improvement is renationalisation which will change the focus from profit.
You will find it hard to find regular or even irregular rail users who don't complain about the state it is now.
That is the level of competence that has secured him sun_tzu's vote!
Its all about the policies.........right...right?