General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time

How do you intend to vote in the 2017 General Election if eligible?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 80 14.5%

  • Labour

    Votes: 322 58.4%

  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 57 10.3%

  • Green

    Votes: 20 3.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 13 2.4%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 29 5.3%

  • Independent

    Votes: 3 0.5%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 2 0.4%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 11 2.0%

  • Other (UUP, DUP, BNP, and anyone else I have forgotten)

    Votes: 14 2.5%
  • Total voters
    551
  • Poll closed .
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Fraser Nelson: "Corbyn is just a red Tory!"

Alright, he didn't quite say that :smirk:, but these graphs may surprise a few people. Which is closer to the point he's making.





Click to expand...


It would be more interesting if the tax take vs spending was adjusted for inflation.
Likewise, for the number of higher rate taxpayers, would be more informative if it was as a %age of the working population, rather than just raw numbers.
 
So the Lib Dems have promised another EU referendum in their manifesto. Given how massively anti-Brexit this forum is I'm curious as to whether they will gain more support in the poll. 15.3% atm.
 
settembrini said:
So the Lib Dems have promised another EU referendum in their manifesto. Given how massively anti-Brexit this forum I'm curious as to whether they will gain more support in the poll. 15.3% atm.
Click to expand...
I don't think their word is trustworthy, frankly.
 
settembrini said:
So the Lib Dems have promised another EU referendum in their manifesto. Given how massively anti-Brexit this forum is I'm curious as to whether they will gain more support in the poll. 15.3% atm.
Click to expand...
I think that was baked in already.
 
Ultimate Grib said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can say that about any railway network, current or past. Even Germany and France, two of the world's best, are falling to bits if you ask the locals. Nationalised railways cost a fortune if you want them to be anything like half decent. Like most of Labour's current ideas they seem to think they can just create the money out of thin air.
 
settembrini said:
So the Lib Dems have promised another EU referendum in their manifesto. Given how massively anti-Brexit this forum is I'm curious as to whether they will gain more support in the poll. 15.3% atm.
Click to expand...
I'm a Lib Dem supporter. I'm an EU supporter. And let me say, their referendum idea just doesn't make sense.

Unless their idea has changed, they want to negotiate Brexit terms, and then have a 2nd referendum on membership, with the choices being Out (under those terms) or In.

Because that's not going to lead to the EU giving us the worst deal imaginable.. so that we have no choice but to stay in?!
 
11101 said:
You can say that about any railway network, current or past. Even Germany and France, two of the world's best, are falling to bits if you ask the locals. Nationalised railways cost a fortune if you want them to be anything like half decent. Like most of Labour's current ideas they seem to think they can just create the money out of thin air.
Click to expand...
Wiki suggests the German rail subsidy is €17bn (as of 2014), the French €13.2bn (2013), and the UK €4bn. So yeah, does suggest that the "it costs nothing, just let the franchises expire" may not really be the whole story, if we're aiming at that level of service anyway.
 
Ubik said:
Hopefully that boost's Peter Kyle's chances a little.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I was thinking he was almost certainly doomed but something like this could change it.

You do well to leave the house round here without seeing the front page of The Argus.

Also, the manifesto including plans for a second line from Brighton to London doesn't hurt.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Indeed. I was thinking he was almost certainly doomed but something like this could change it.

You do well to leave the house round here without seeing the front page of The Argus.
Click to expand...
Ugh, that apostrophe in my post :lol:

YouGov have done some regional analysis and Labour's vote seems to be holding up okay in the south, and without much UKIP vote there to cannibalise it's possible he could hang on. Greens are a big question mark, I've no doubt Lucas will win in Pavilion but a lot of the younger voters that backed them in 2015 seem to have gone to Labour generally. Never know, could also win Kemptown.
 
Ubik said:
Wiki suggests the German rail subsidy is €17bn (as of 2014), the French €13.2bn (2013), and the UK €4bn. So yeah, does suggest that the "it costs nothing, just let the franchises expire" may not really be the whole story, if we're aiming at that level of service anyway.
Click to expand...

True... but to reach a much better level of service would cost the Government a lot more whether train operators are under public ownership or not. It'll almost certainly cost them less under public ownership though than it currently would.
 
Ubik said:
Ugh, that apostrophe in my post :lol:

YouGov have done some regional analysis and Labour's vote seems to be holding up okay in the south, and without much UKIP vote there to cannibalise it's possible he could hang on. Greens are a big question mark, I've no doubt Lucas will win in Pavilion but a lot of the younger voters that backed them in 2015 seem to have gone to Labour generally. Never know, could also win Kemptown.
Click to expand...
The reason we generally vote labour down here is because we get neglected most of the time.

The Tories think that £7.50 is a national livig wage where i am from. You actually can't rent a one bedroom flat for under £525 a month, council tax is £85 a month for a single occupant and water, gas and electric is around £160 a month if you are being mindful of use. But you can live on £7.50 an hour (on a zero hour contract which thankfully i am not on)
 
rcoobc said:
I'm a Lib Dem supporter. I'm an EU supporter. And let me say, their referendum idea just doesn't make sense.

Unless their idea has changed, they want to negotiate Brexit terms, and then have a 2nd referendum on membership, with the choices being Out (under those terms) or In.

Because that's not going to lead to the EU giving us the worst deal imaginable.. so that we have no choice but to stay in?!
Click to expand...
I'm probably voting Lib Dem but I agree, complete nonsense.
 
rcoobc said:
I'm a Lib Dem supporter. I'm an EU supporter. And let me say, their referendum idea just doesn't make sense.

Unless their idea has changed, they want to negotiate Brexit terms, and then have a 2nd referendum on membership, with the choices being Out (under those terms) or In.

Because that's not going to lead to the EU giving us the worst deal imaginable.. so that we have no choice but to stay in?!
Click to expand...

By the same token, Labour have a ruled out leaving without a deal which makes our negotiating position completely redundant. The EU has license to complete shaft us any which way they want.
 
ZupZup said:
True... but to reach a much better level of service would cost the Government a lot more whether train operators are under public ownership or not. It'll almost certainly cost them less under public ownership though than it currently would.
Click to expand...


Why is that? I am not saying that this is impossible, but you have to point at concrete issues to make a valid argument. Maybe the contracts with the operators are really bad or the operators itself running a bad operation. If that is the case, these inefficiencies need to be fixed and public ownership might be one step in this process. We can see in Switzerland that public ownership of railway companies can work; yet in Switzerland these companies act de-facto almost like private ones and have to face competition.

That’s really the underlying issue. It is not so much about public/private ownership itself, but about the structure of the railway market. The government might want to offer transportation that the private market wouldn’t. It is fair to have this discussion, but you need to be honest about the costs of it.
 
PedroMendez said:
Why is that? I am not saying that this is impossible, but you have to point at concrete issues to make a valid argument. Maybe the contracts with the operators are really bad or the operators itself running a bad operation. If that is the case, these inefficiencies need to be fixed and public ownership might be one step in this process. We can see in Switzerland that public ownership of railway companies can work; yet in Switzerland these companies act de-facto almost like private ones and have to face competition.

That’s really the underlying issue. It is not so much about public/private ownership itself, but about the structure of the railway market. The government might want to offer transportation that the private market wouldn’t. It is fair to have this discussion, but you need to be honest about the costs of it.
Click to expand...

But you've already said that in your opinion, "greedy companies are taking all the profits is not a serious argument" for taking train operations into public ownership? Which in itself is very odd since it is one of the main arguments for it... possibly the biggest.

From my point of view... to maintain the existing service would cost less under public ownership than the current system. For the exact reason you are keen to ignore... we pay billions in subsidies with a significant portion going towards dividends for shareholders. Now, if we want to really improve the current operations and service... we'd still have to put the sums of money in because under the current system, private operators won't invest without demanding reimbursement through subsidies. So do we pay even more in subsidies to fund it? Public sector borrowing is also less expensive than private...
 
You know how the Tories are all about the Theresa May - practically no one else allowed to speak out much on the National stage. Especially your Johnsons & that Johnson bloke who can't normally keep his trap shut. And other idiots & twats like Gove & Duncan-Smith & McVey are uncharacteristically quiet.

Do you think they said to her, have it now - everything packed into the month of May is subliminally great for us campaign wise - constant reinforcement. May, may, may... all about the month innit. We're all being brainwashed, :nervous:.

Flat Earth thread over here -----> :D.
 
Damien said:
BBC: Plenty of stuff on Diane Abbott getting her numbers wrong but no headlines on Philip Hammond fecking up the numbers for the cost of HS2
Click to expand...
Nick Robinson would be on the case but there wasn't a noise during the interview that he can turn into Hammond being passed a piece of paper to help answer a question.
 
PedroMendez said:
Why is that? I am not saying that this is impossible, but you have to point at concrete issues to make a valid argument. Maybe the contracts with the operators are really bad or the operators itself running a bad operation. If that is the case, these inefficiencies need to be fixed and public ownership might be one step in this process. We can see in Switzerland that public ownership of railway companies can work; yet in Switzerland these companies act de-facto almost like private ones and have to face competition.

That’s really the underlying issue. It is not so much about public/private ownership itself, but about the structure of the railway market. The government might want to offer transportation that the private market wouldn’t. It is fair to have this discussion, but you need to be honest about the costs of it.
Click to expand...

Not really. In long-distance travel the public company SBB has a monopoly. The other companies almost exclusively work in near-distance travel. It's not only a monopoly on rail either, it's a monopoly on long-distance travel per se. There is no competition from the bus. The idea behind the monopoly is that the govt. thinks train is better than bus altogether (various reasons) and it a.) drives up numbers (which is important as you have stated in your previous post) and b.) allows them to subsidize the weaker regions with the stronger ones internally (something that is regulated in their concession). The govt. is thinking about maybe giving one or two of these main routes to a competitor to fire up their asses but nothing decided yet.

What you touch on the last paragraph though is imo the gist of all three of the public services mail/energy/transportation.

There is another debate to be had about the infrastructure in energy (who is going to pay for nuclear waste 10 years down the line?) and rail (too expensive service if infrastructure costs are included in tickets.
 
Unmutual said:
Last numbers I saw showed that on average the TOCs have had an average operating margin of just 3% since privatisation. Keeping that 3% may be desirable, but its not a transformative amount of money. The argument for nationalisation boils down to explaining why the Government would be better than the private sector within more or less the same funding envelope.
Click to expand...

I read an article on it a couple of years ago and whilst 3% sounds minimal... what are we looking at in terms of spending? The article I read suggested that approximately £1b of the £4b we are spending in subsidies would be saved under public ownership. £1b is a reasonable amount of money that could be put towards funding public services.
 
Damien said:
BBC: Plenty of stuff on Diane Abbott getting her numbers wrong but no headlines on Philip Hammond fecking up the numbers for the cost of HS2.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08q313b
2:10:05 is where the interview starts.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, the only mainstream outlets covering Hammond's slip are the Mirror and the Canary (hardly mainstream). Bizarre. I guess Labour/Abbot makes for a better story, hated as she is.
 
Damien said:
The issue is talking about it in a Sikh temple.
Click to expand...
Ah, yeah, I'm not really up on the dos and don'ts of difference religions tbh, apart from being married to a hindu.
 
Ubik said:
Wiki suggests the German rail subsidy is €17bn (as of 2014), the French €13.2bn (2013), and the UK €4bn. So yeah, does suggest that the "it costs nothing, just let the franchises expire" may not really be the whole story, if we're aiming at that level of service anyway.
Click to expand...

If we wanted it to be a top class system like Germany it needs untold billions invested in it, nationalised or not.

Whether or not privatisation saves money operationally isn't really clear. Probably yes. The franchise payments from the TOCs are slightly more than the subsidies given to them, which themselves are way lower than other similarly sized nationalised railways.


ZupZup said:
True... but to reach a much better level of service would cost the Government a lot more whether train operators are under public ownership or not. It'll almost certainly cost them less under public ownership though than it currently would.
Click to expand...
 
At that exact moment, he's saying "that could leave some with a loss of up to £23,000". I suppose he wasn't expecting people to screenshot it and remove his actual explanation.
 
Ubik said:
At that exact moment, he's saying "that could leave some with a loss of up to £23,000". I suppose he wasn't expecting people to screenshot it and remove his actual explanation.
Click to expand...
:lol: "...just not the people we've said it is on the screen I'm standing in front of, entirely as a visual representation of the thing I'm explaining."
 
Dobba said:
:lol: "...just not the people we've said it is on the screen I'm standing in front of, entirely as a visual representation of the thing I'm explaining."
Click to expand...
It's a representation of the new tax bands Labour are proposing. You'll be pleased to know he made it clearer for the news at ten, for people that can only get their news via screengrabs of pieces on twitter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.