Westminster Politics

[Maticmaker]

You genuinely think the Tories are the least bad major party? I'm staggered if so, much as I think Labour are a bit dogshit. The Tories prove their incompetence, maliciousness and corruption time after time. Tbh I think the Lib Dems will become a major ish party next time round due to Starmer's incompetence.

It isn't what I think, its what most people, who are not 'into politics' think, most of them probably only vote at GE.... its called democracy.

For many who might vote Labour, the prospect is bleak. The 'left' in the UK has been in public disarray for years, most significantly 'bitching and scratching' within the Labour Party; who is more left, who is more sincere, who is more socialist , sorry, true socialists not the Blair kind? Labour was 'sliced and diced' over Brexit, don't forget there are many on the 'hard left', dating from the days of Tony Benn, who hated the EU with a vengeance and thought Britain should never have been involved, let alone stay in this 'rich mans club'. Then there are the Nationalists, especially in Scotland, those who have taken on the mantle of 'representing the true working Scotsman/woman and of course the Greens who beyond the Green issues, also espouse a broadly left ideology. Finally your tip for Government (or at least major party) the Liberal Democrats, another cobbled together coalition of old fashioned Liberals and Social Democrats, some of whom are considered to really be mild mannered Tories in disguise. Since Labour lost its 'chunk' of seats in Scotland, and seems unable or unwilling to try to win them back, then its chances of ever again getting any sort of majority at Westminster is in the 'Unicorn search' activity listings.

The Tories may demonstrate incompetence, maliciousness and some levels of corruption, but they also demonstrate they can band together to win and then to hold on to power... in other words they look like winners to the casual (once every five year) voter. The truth that appeals is that those who do win, at least get a chance to implement what they espouse, those who come second, third, fourth etc. don't!! Whilst there are two main parties who are perceived to be able to take power, then TFPTP system will be retained. Of the two main parties, Labour looks the most likely to disintegrate.

 

[TwoSheds]

It isn't what I think, its what most people, who are not 'into politics' think, most of them probably only vote at GE.... its called democracy.

For many who might vote Labour, the prospect is bleak. The 'left' in the UK has been in public disarray for years, most significantly 'bitching and scratching' within the Labour Party; who is more left, who is more sincere, who is more socialist , sorry, true socialists not the Blair kind? Labour was 'sliced and diced' over Brexit, don't forget there are many on the 'hard left', dating from the days of Tony Benn, who hated the EU with a vengeance and thought Britain should never have been involved, let alone stay in this 'rich mans club'. Then there are the Nationalists, especially in Scotland, those who have taken on the mantle of 'representing the true working Scotsman/woman and of course the Greens who beyond the Green issues, also espouse a broadly left ideology. Finally your tip for Government (or at least major party) the Liberal Democrats, another cobbled together coalition of old fashioned Liberals and Social Democrats, some of whom are considered to really be mild mannered Tories in disguise. Since Labour lost its 'chunk' of seats in Scotland, and seems unable or unwilling to try to win them back, then its chances of ever again getting any sort of majority at Westminster is in the 'Unicorn search' activity listings.

The Tories may demonstrate incompetence, maliciousness and some levels of corruption, but they also demonstrate they can band together to win and then to hold on to power... in other words they look like winners to the casual (once every five year) voter. The truth that appeals is that those who do win, at least get a chance to implement what they espouse, those who come second, third, fourth etc. don't!! Whilst there are two main parties who are perceived to be able to take power, then TFPTP system will be retained. Of the two main parties, Labour looks the most likely to disintegrate.

Well again I don't disagree that politics is in a state but voting for the "winners" because they're "winners" is a sure way to feck yourself over, pretty much whoever the winner should be, never mind if they're an appalling foetid whirlpool of shite and corruption.

 

[Sir Matt]

 

[calodo2003]

When is the next election?

 

[Fluctuation0161]

When is the next election?

And will the constituency boundaries pushed through by the Tories be in place?

 

[Adisa]

Could the right be lacking enthusiasm since brexit has been "delivered"? You get the sense the right need a new enemy.

 

[Jippy]

Could the right be lacking enthusiasm since brexit has been "delivered"? You get the sense the right need a new enemy.

The right is never going to be short of enemies. From the ongoing ructions with the EU to Covid restrictions, refugees, 'wokeism' and climate controls, I'm sure they can trump up some new existential threat from somewhere in there. Islamic terror has been quiet for ages.

 

[TwoSheds]

The right is never going to be short of enemies. From the ongoing ructions with the EU to Covid restrictions, refugees, 'wokeism' and climate controls, I'm sure they can trump up some new existential threat from somewhere in there. Islamic terror has been quiet for ages.

Yeah but it can be hard to unite them all around the same baddie. Particularly when the last baddie we freed ourselves from turned out to a) be our mate and b) still have power over us anyway. Because, you know, reality.

 

[Maticmaker]

0

Well again I don't disagree that politics is in a state but voting for the "winners" because they're "winners" is a sure way to feck yourself over, pretty much whoever the winner should be, never mind if they're an appalling foetid whirlpool of shite and corruption.

"Winners" tend to be those who deal in reality, whatever that reality is and that appeals to many voters who are not immersed in politics; hence until opponents to the Tories come along who actually start to look like winners it will always be the same, the Tories will 'hold sway.'
For one fleeting moment in the last GE, Labour had the attention of many non-political would be voters, the ball was in their court, but alas they once again ( regrettably as in many times within my life time) proved they couldn't run with it!

The Tory 80+ majority has been a major factor in allowing them to continue to Govern, but also so has the pandemic as people generally give Boris the benefit of doubt and because he is, for better or worse, our 'johnny on the spot' leader when the pandemic struck and so he gets so much 'leeway' from the public.
However, as we move towards the next GE the 80 majority could remarkably actually become a burden, because even if the Tories win another term, it wont be with such a large majority so any victory will feel like a loss....and if the pandemic is all but over, it might not even be that.
Boris would appear to have boxed himself in, he is talking about 'Levelling up' and at the same time aiming for 'zero carbon' targets, the two are in meaningful terms however mutually exclusive, at least in the short term.

In my view to have a realistic chance at forming another Labour Government, the party has to get moving in Scotland. The natural physical layout and structure of Scotland is such that with proper level of investment, especially in Hydro-electricity generation (interconnecting Lochs NE to SW) it could not only become self-sufficient it could also export energy ; but with the Nationalists holding sway, any UK Government would unlikely to be interested, if in future the one part of the UK that had achieved zero carbon targets, was likely to breakaway with all that, (likely to be billions of pounds worth) investment committed by the UK taxpayer.
Its the kind of 'big idea' that is needed to counteract the appeal of independence in Scotland a 'foothold' to try to win back Labour supporters in Scotland growing weary of the SNP government and its failure to push along independence. The level of investment needed for such projects as Hydro-Electric Generation would be beyond Scotland's National capability if independent, but a Scotland still within the UK and the only part that could meaningfully achieve Zero Carbon targets... well anythings possible!

Come on Keir put on that famous thinking cap!!

 

[TwoSheds]

0

"Winners" tend to be those who deal in reality, whatever that reality is and that appeals to many voters who are not immersed in politics; hence until opponents to the Tories come along who actually start to look like winners it will always be the same, the Tories will 'hold sway.'
For one fleeting moment in the last GE, Labour had the attention of many non-political would be voters, the ball was in their court, but alas they once again ( regrettably as in many times within my life time) proved they couldn't run with it!

The Tory 80+ majority has been a major factor in allowing them to continue to Govern, but also so has the pandemic as people generally give Boris the benefit of doubt and because he is, for better or worse, our 'johnny on the spot' leader when the pandemic struck and so he gets so much 'leeway' from the public.
However, as we move towards the next GE the 80 majority could remarkably actually become a burden, because even if the Tories win another term, it wont be with such a large majority so any victory will feel like a loss....and if the pandemic is all but over, it might not even be that.
Boris would appear to have boxed himself in, he is talking about 'Levelling up' and at the same time aiming for 'zero carbon' targets, the two are in meaningful terms however mutually exclusive, at least in the short term.

In my view to have a realistic chance at forming another Labour Government, the party has to get moving in Scotland. The natural physical layout and structure of Scotland is such that with proper level of investment, especially in Hydro-electricity generation (interconnecting Lochs NE to SW) it could not only become self-sufficient it could also export energy ; but with the Nationalists holding sway, any UK Government would unlikely to be interested, if in future the one part of the UK that had achieved zero carbon targets, was likely to breakaway with all that, (likely to be billions of pounds worth) investment committed by the UK taxpayer.
Its the kind of 'big idea' that is needed to counteract the appeal of independence in Scotland a 'foothold' to try to win back Labour supporters in Scotland growing weary of the SNP government and its failure to push along independence. The level of investment needed for such projects as Hydro-Electric Generation would be beyond Scotland's National capability if independent, but a Scotland still within the UK and the only part that could meaningfully achieve Zero Carbon targets... well anythings possible!

Come on Keir put on that famous thinking cap!!

Again, perhaps you're right that people think the Tories deal in reality but the fact of the matter is they dealt largely in delusion in 2010 and have continually got more unhinged since then.

And I think your assertion that levelling up and zero net carbon are mutually exclusive is wildly wrong. It's actually a huge opportunity to spread investment out around the country as renewable energy is as much if not more likely to come from "the sticks" as from the traditional centres of industry. The fact that we're not doing that just shows that Boris is paying lip service to net zero without actually putting much effort into it. Just like levelling up. As you say, if we actually invested shit loads of money into e.g. Scottish tidal power and treated the Scots as friends and adults as a childish adversary (i.e. we could always trade energy with them in the future even if they were independent, like we do with Norway, France or Morocco) then maybe they wouldn't be half as keen to be independent and wouldbe more able to see the benefits of unity.

 

[Brwned]

The Tories may demonstrate incompetence, maliciousness and some levels of corruption, but they also demonstrate they can band together to win and then to hold on to power... in other words they look like winners to the casual (once every five year) voter. The truth that appeals is that those who do win, at least get a chance to implement what they espouse, those who come second, third, fourth etc. don't!! Whilst there are two main parties who are perceived to be able to take power, then TFPTP system will be retained. Of the two main parties, Labour looks the most likely to disintegrate.

You can see the logical flaws here, surely?

 

[Maticmaker]

And I think your assertion that levelling up and zero net carbon are mutually exclusive is wildly wrong. It's actually a huge opportunity to spread investment out around the country as renewable energy is as much if not more likely to come from "the sticks" as from the traditional centres of industry.

Sorry I don't agree, this is exactly what I have been on about and what I fear will happen, its spread a little bit here. a little bit there keep the northerners happy.
Investment in what? Large swathes of wind farms, as far as the eye can see, laid out acres of solar panels all over the Pennines? Levelling up needs much more than renewable energy it has to involve proper development e.g. effective road and rail trans-pennine routes, it has to have linked industry and ongoing commercial value inherent in the areas in which people live and work, involving design and manufacture, as well as logistics; it needs big investment projects like Hydro electric generation true, but it also needs industry and services that need and use that energy locally. There also has to be a continuing commitment to taking major interests e.g. Public and Private Services out of London and the South East and spreading elsewhere in the UK.
Initially this will not result in lower carbon usage, the opposite will happen (if it happens) at least for a while, very little in 'leveling up' contributes to zero carbon targets.

This is why Boris is eventually going to come a cropper, he comes out with big ideas but doesn't recognise how such things play out, what contradictions there are in his 'ideas', indeed he probably doesn't care, he is the ideal 'bullet proof, fire proof' front man for the Tories, at least until such time as they want to give him up. Labour need to get on developing their own 'case building' for Government now, forget Boris.

 

[TwoSheds]

Sorry I don't agree, this is exactly what I have been on about and what I fear will happen, its spread a little bit here. a little bit there keep the northerners happy.
Investment in what? Large swathes of wind farms, as far as the eye can see, laid out acres of solar panels all over the Pennines? Levelling up needs much more than renewable energy it has to involve proper development e.g. effective road and rail trans-pennine routes, it has to have linked industry and ongoing commercial value inherent in the areas in which people live and work, involving design and manufacture, as well as logistics; it needs big investment projects like Hydro electric generation true, but it also needs industry and services that need and use that energy locally. There also has to be a continuing commitment to taking major interests e.g. Public and Private Services out of London and the South East and spreading elsewhere in the UK.
Initially this will not result in lower carbon usage, the opposite will happen (if it happens) at least for a while, very little in 'leveling up' contributes to zero carbon targets.

This is why Boris is eventually going to come a cropper, he comes out with big ideas but doesn't recognise how such things play out, what contradictions there are in his 'ideas', indeed he probably doesn't care, he is the ideal 'bullet proof, fire proof' front man for the Tories, at least until such time as they want to give him up. Labour need to get on developing their own 'case building' for Government now, forget Boris.

I don't think you understand how complicated reaching net zero is going to be. It's going to involve massively upgrading our transport infrastructure, investing heavily in "greening" energy-intensive industries such as steelmaking using e.g. hydrogen or other "net zero" fuels, it's going to involve large amounts of investment in R&D, recycling, changes in town planning, energy storage projects, investing in the sustainability of our agriculture and fishing...

There are an incredible number of challenges which in fact should be viewed as amazing opportunities to decentralise our economy and make the whole country a better place to live, it's really not just about electricity generation. But none of our politicians know this either of course, not really. Because they're mostly thick as pigshit, and even more importantly very few of them understand either science or economics. Doesn't matter how many briefings Liz Truss gets on this sort of thing, it'd be like talking to a particularly thick wall.

 

[Mart1974]

When I called him Gossip Girl it was so accurate ffs

Not seen anything from him. Wonder if Bozo paid him off

 

[WPMUFC]

Boris Johnson urged fox hunters to break the law and keep killing animals despite the practice being banned, in an article written while he was a Conservative MP.

In the 2005 piece, Mr Johnson said he “loved” hunting with dogs, in part because of the “semi-sexual relation with the horse” and the “military-style pleasure” of moving as a unit.

The future prime minister argued that the imposition of the ban was “not about cruelty” but “a Marxian attack” by the Labour government on the upper class.

Old story getting some resurgence overnight but i'm assuming this is why the english seemed to love him pre-PM?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...legal-ban-a9624846.html?utm_source=reddit.com

 

[Maticmaker]

I don't think you understand how complicated reaching net zero is going to be. It's going to involve massively upgrading our transport infrastructure, investing heavily in "greening" energy-intensive industries such as steelmaking using e.g. hydrogen or other "net zero" fuels, it's going to involve large amounts of investment in R&D, recycling, changes in town planning, energy storage projects, investing in the sustainability of our agriculture and fishing...

There are an incredible number of challenges which in fact should be viewed as amazing opportunities to decentralise our economy and make the whole country a better place to live, it's really not just about electricity generation. But none of our politicians know this either of course, not really. Because they're mostly thick as pigshit, and even more importantly very few of them understand either science or economics. Doesn't matter how many briefings Liz Truss gets on this sort of thing, it'd be like talking to a particularly thick wall.

Oh, I can have a good guess!
I agree its about changing what already exists in terms of reducing carbon, finding new ways and methods to do and to run things on, but its not about expanding, or bringing in new investment into areas where for generations now the infrastructure and community values have been steadily eroded. One of Labours biggest mistakes when it was in power was to fail to rejuvenate its heartlands, the Tories at the last GE gave hope that they just might have done, if only to try to hold on to the red wall defectors! However this double objective of Boris to level up and reduce carbon to zero, is a nonsense, as far as rejuvenation is concerned, because as it always does, new funding, new investment will always 'follow the money/prosperity that already exists' .

Yes there will be need for new ventures, new planning strictures that will force a carbon neutral outcome, but the 'upside' of this won't happen in rundown towns and communities, there isn't the infrastructure or the skills in the local workforce, those skills that still exists come from an era of industrialization. It will take generations of change and development (decentralizing the economy) before the 'levelling up' aspect of seeking a carbon neutral economy takes hold, those communities who have suffered for decades want a Government that will do something in the 'here and now'... make some changes to the disposition of wealth creating industry and commerce as it currently exists, they have had enough of 'Jam tomorrow'.

Boris will try to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public, and tell everyone its all for the greater good...in the future of course, but he knows he will have to offer something now and therefore it all depends on what he can achieve between now and 2024 that he can get away with calling 'leveling-up'. Boris himself made the statement that the red wall voters have only "loaned him their vote", they could and will snatch it back if he fails to impress!
Where we probably agree is that if these voters do deprive Boris of their vote, it wont automatically return to Labour, at least as things stand, certainly not in Scotland where it is just as desperate a need for Labour to win seats as it is south of the border. To whom and how these votes will go, is anyone's guess... cue a return of Nigel perhaps?

 

[Dobba]

Labour winning seats in Scotland

What an absolute crock of shit that is.

 

[RedSky]

Old story getting some resurgence overnight but i'm assuming this is why the english seemed to love him pre-PM?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...legal-ban-a9624846.html?utm_source=reddit.com

I blame Have I Got News For You. They gave him a lot of screen time and we English do like a loveable buffoon.

 

[TwoSheds]

Oh, I can have a good guess!
I agree its about changing what already exists in terms of reducing carbon, finding new ways and methods to do and to run things on, but its not about expanding, or bringing in new investment into areas where for generations now the infrastructure and community values have been steadily eroded. One of Labours biggest mistakes when it was in power was to fail to rejuvenate its heartlands, the Tories at the last GE gave hope that they just might have done, if only to try to hold on to the red wall defectors! However this double objective of Boris to level up and reduce carbon to zero, is a nonsense, as far as rejuvenation is concerned, because as it always does, new funding, new investment will always 'follow the money/prosperity that already exists' .

Yes there will be need for new ventures, new planning strictures that will force a carbon neutral outcome, but the 'upside' of this won't happen in rundown towns and communities, there isn't the infrastructure or the skills in the local workforce, those skills that still exists come from an era of industrialization. It will take generations of change and development (decentralizing the economy) before the 'levelling up' aspect of seeking a carbon neutral economy takes hold, those communities who have suffered for decades want a Government that will do something in the 'here and now'... make some changes to the disposition of wealth creating industry and commerce as it currently exists, they have had enough of 'Jam tomorrow'.

Boris will try to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public, and tell everyone its all for the greater good...in the future of course, but he knows he will have to offer something now and therefore it all depends on what he can achieve between now and 2024 that he can get away with calling 'leveling-up'. Boris himself made the statement that the red wall voters have only "loaned him their vote", they could and will snatch it back if he fails to impress!
Where we probably agree is that if these voters do deprive Boris of their vote, it wont automatically return to Labour, at least as things stand, certainly not in Scotland where it is just as desperate a need for Labour to win seats as it is south of the border. To whom and how these votes will go, is anyone's guess... cue a return of Nigel perhaps?

I agree with you the primary problems are skills shortages due to years of poor / immoral decision making from the powers that be, and lack of will to invest today. But there are actually a large number of very easy things we could be doing today that by their nature would start to rectify the skills shortages. If the political will and understanding was there things could in fact change very quickly. If you get the ball rolling and the money comes into the area, the education and skills can follow to some extent as it's merely an iteration / expansion of what you've already started doing.

As an example, installing electric vehicle charging points and solar panels is something that any decent sparkie could do with the correct training. What you need to do is release the money and provide the right incentives to get the products put in and the skills will follow almost immediately. Same for e.g. heat pumps in homes and businesses, it's just a slightly different take on existing skillsets. Railways connecting up the north with fully electric trains would again be very easy if the money and will was there. And while you're hitting this type of low hanging fruit you can be quietly building skills and developing more highly skilled industry in the background. Tax breaks for renewable energy companies in areas where industry is lacking, cash to steel and aerospace companies in exchange for them committing to install / develop electric / fuel cell technology in their operations. Immediately bringing in much more stringent rules about what type of heating, electric and water supplies are fitted in new builds and incentives for sensibly retrofitting older homes. Free education and tax incentives for both young people and existing farmers in exchange for them operating farms on sustainable principles etc etc.

The journey starts as soon as a government actually wants to do something about it rather than talk bollocks and hope "the market" (for which read ordinary people) sort it out for themselves. It's really not a hopeless situation, just hopeless people in charge. We have to change that before we'll get anywhere. And if the people we change to don't do it, change change change until we get someone who will.

 

[Maticmaker]

I agree with you the primary problems are skills shortages due to years of poor / immoral decision making from the powers that be, and lack of will to invest today. But there are actually a large number of very easy things we could be doing today that by their nature would start to rectify the skills shortages. If the political will and understanding was there things could in fact change very quickly. If you get the ball rolling and the money comes into the area, the education and skills can follow to some extent as it's merely an iteration / expansion of what you've already started doing.

As an example, installing electric vehicle charging points and solar panels is something that any decent sparkie could do with the correct training. What you need to do is release the money and provide the right incentives to get the products put in and the skills will follow almost immediately. Same for e.g. heat pumps in homes and businesses, it's just a slightly different take on existing skillsets. Railways connecting up the north with fully electric trains would again be very easy if the money and will was there. And while you're hitting this type of low hanging fruit you can be quietly building skills and developing more highly skilled industry in the background. Tax breaks for renewable energy companies in areas where industry is lacking, cash to steel and aerospace companies in exchange for them committing to install / develop electric / fuel cell technology in their operations. Immediately bringing in much more stringent rules about what type of heating, electric and water supplies are fitted in new builds and incentives for sensibly retrofitting older homes. Free education and tax incentives for both young people and existing farmers in exchange for them operating farms on sustainable principles etc etc.

The journey starts as soon as a government actually wants to do something about it rather than talk bollocks and hope "the market" (for which read ordinary people) sort it out for themselves. It's really not a hopeless situation, just hopeless people in charge. We have to change that before we'll get anywhere. And if the people we change to don't do it, change change change until we get someone who will.

This is the problem in a 'nutshell'.

The changes needed take time and a certain degree of trust in those that Govern us, that the inputs necessary will be made (regularly) and unfortunately sadly, that is what is lacking right across the political spectrum, especially under a FPTP system with a 5 year time span.
Its all short term and that is why politicians like Boris can get away with it, as indeed Labour did when it left the note about "all the money had gone".Long term major projects to be delivered long after the Government that introduced them has gone, have little or no success in being adopted and even when the are, like HS2 they get nibbled away at to meet short term expedience, whenever the government of the day come under pressure. True, certain issues like the Channel Tunnel did survive, virtually intact, but this project in its development phase didn't do much for everything north of Watford.

I was reading somewhere lately that in 1913 there was a Government proposal to form a national reservoir grid system to supply water anywhere in the mainland UK, the estimated cost at the time was £3M. However WW1 was looming so the plans got shelved. In the early 1930's the same plan was looked at again, but now the cost was closer to £100m, shelved again, looked at once more in the 1950's (same plan) projected costs now £350m and again (and looked at for the last time) in the late 1970's projected cost £2.5B. Goodness knows what the cost will be now, but a national grid for water collection, treatment and delivery will be needed at some point if the climate change predictions on water shortages does materialize.

Each time something prompted the Government, either to 'look again', and/or to 'put off' again...1913 WW1 looming; 1930's German military development; 1950's Egypt (Suez Canal /President Nasser issues) and in the 1970's the formation of OPEC and the increase in WW Oil prices.
always a good reason, especially for a Government that won't be in place when its finished!
This is what I mean when throughout my lifetime British Governments generally (post war Labour the exception) tend to shy away from commitments that have a long term completion and pay back status.
I'm afraid we do get the politicians we deserve and your idea of keep voting for change until it happens sounds great, but I thought that is what I had been doing (up to the last GE) for most of my adult life!

 

[TwoSheds]

This is the problem in a 'nutshell'.

The changes needed take time and a certain degree of trust in those that Govern us, that the inputs necessary will be made (regularly) and unfortunately sadly, that is what is lacking right across the political spectrum, especially under a FPTP system with a 5 year time span.
Its all short term and that is why politicians like Boris can get away with it, as indeed Labour did when it left the note about "all the money had gone".Long term major projects to be delivered long after the Government that introduced them has gone, have little or no success in being adopted and even when the are, like HS2 they get nibbled away at to meet short term expedience, whenever the government of the day come under pressure. True, certain issues like the Channel Tunnel did survive, virtually intact, but this project in its development phase didn't do much for everything north of Watford.

I was reading somewhere lately that in 1913 there was a Government proposal to form a national reservoir grid system to supply water anywhere in the mainland UK, the estimated cost at the time was £3M. However WW1 was looming so the plans got shelved. In the early 1930's the same plan was looked at again, but now the cost was closer to £100m, shelved again, looked at once more in the 1950's (same plan) projected costs now £350m and again (and looked at for the last time) in the late 1970's projected cost £2.5B. Goodness knows what the cost will be now, but a national grid for water collection, treatment and delivery will be needed at some point if the climate change predictions on water shortages does materialize.

Each time something prompted the Government, either to 'look again', and/or to 'put off' again...1913 WW1 looming; 1930's German military development; 1950's Egypt (Suez Canal /President Nasser issues) and in the 1970's the formation of OPEC and the increase in WW Oil prices.
always a good reason, especially for a Government that won't be in place when its finished!
This is what I mean when throughout my lifetime British Governments generally (post war Labour the exception) tend to shy away from commitments that have a long term completion and pay back status.
I'm afraid we do get the politicians we deserve and your idea of keep voting for change until it happens sounds great, but I thought that is what I had been doing (up to the last GE) for most of my adult life!

Electrifying the northern railways wouldn't take 5 years though. Installing feck loads of charging points wouldn't take 5 years. Giving tax breaks to SMEs to move to / form in areas which lack industry would see benefits in far less than 5 years. You're just looking for a more fatalistic explanation for what's really very simple - the government don't know the first thing about the country they run, economics or science. And they're well incentivised by the cheeseboards in their London clubs to stay that way. Change them, keep changing them until you get someone with the first clue. Don't vote for the same party 15 years in a row unless they're doing a pretty good job or you're dooming yourself to many decades of failure.

 

[Maticmaker]

You're just looking for a more fatalistic explanation for what's really very simple -

Then why has this rejuvenation not been done decades ago especially when Labour had its chance? What other party would you recommend to be running the country?

 

[sun_tzu]

Electrifying the northern railways wouldn't take 5 years though.

It will take way more to be honest

Speaking as somebody who has worked on rail electrification it took about 5 years to plan and deliver the 40 miles from glasgow to Edinburgh

Thing is its really hard to keep trains running and do works ...

Especially when you get to bridges that need to be raised or demolished/ rebuilt ... or tunnels

plus stations will need remodeling which is always a nightmare to plan

Then factor in that the plant and trained operatives simply are not available at big scale especially with hs2 and other particularly electric related infra schemes (remodeling and upgrading the networks around renewables)

Ther simply isn't a way to electrify the majority of the northern rail network in 5 years in my opinion

https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/travel/network-map

 

[Mart1974]

It will take way more to be honest

Speaking as somebody who has worked on rail electrification it took about 5 years to plan and deliver the 40 miles from glasgow to Edinburgh

Thing is its really hard to keep trains running and do works ...

Especially when you get to bridges that need to be raised or demolished/ rebuilt ... or tunnels

plus stations will need remodeling which is always a nightmare to plan

Then factor in that the plant and trained operatives simply are not available at big scale especially with hs2 and other particularly electric related infra schemes (remodeling and upgrading the networks around renewables)

Ther simply isn't a way to electrify the majority of the northern rail network in 5 years in my opinion

https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/travel/network-map

It took about 18 months to do the stretch from Preston to Blackpool if I remember correctly. 20 miles and loads of delays.

 

[sun_tzu]

It took about 18 months to do the stretch from Preston to Blackpool if I remember correctly. 20 miles and loads of delays.

Main civils did

If you factor in design, tendering, planning, procurement and advanced civils I believe it started 2010 or 2011 (remember tendering some works for utility diversions when in the build up to the olympics... i.e. Sat pricing it on a laptop I'm Hyde Park with a terrible 3g connection and we had been looking at the scheme for over a year at that point )

Delivery was 2018?

So yeah about 8 years I think

 

[Mart1974]

Main civils did

If you factor in design, tendering, planning, procurement and advanced civils I believe it started 2010 or 2011 (remember tendering some works for utility diversions when in the build up to the olympics... i.e. Sat pricing it on a laptop I'm Hyde Park with a terrible 3g connection and we had been looking at the scheme for over a year at that point )

Delivery was 2018?

So yeah about 8 years I think

Yeah, I was thinking about the bit you see. There is usually the rest of the iceberg of procurement and planning...

 

[TwoSheds]

It will take way more to be honest

Speaking as somebody who has worked on rail electrification it took about 5 years to plan and deliver the 40 miles from glasgow to Edinburgh

Thing is its really hard to keep trains running and do works ...

Especially when you get to bridges that need to be raised or demolished/ rebuilt ... or tunnels

plus stations will need remodeling which is always a nightmare to plan

Then factor in that the plant and trained operatives simply are not available at big scale especially with hs2 and other particularly electric related infra schemes (remodeling and upgrading the networks around renewables)

Ther simply isn't a way to electrify the majority of the northern rail network in 5 years in my opinion

https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/travel/network-map

Fair enough! How much do you reckon you could get done then? A quarter?

 

[TwoSheds]

Main civils did

If you factor in design, tendering, planning, procurement and advanced civils I believe it started 2010 or 2011 (remember tendering some works for utility diversions when in the build up to the olympics... i.e. Sat pricing it on a laptop I'm Hyde Park with a terrible 3g connection and we had been looking at the scheme for over a year at that point )

Delivery was 2018?

So yeah about 8 years I think

Sounds like that process needs looking at really...what do you think is the problem with it?

 

[sun_tzu]

Sounds like that process needs looking at really...what do you think is the problem with it?

I think the main problem is that it's really complex

Probably change the risk profile on the contractors so the network absorbs more of the risk (eg cost plus type rather than fixed price deals)

That would probably allow for better and more holistic planning earlier... but without going into a huge amount if detail if you want to take old victorian bridges and raise them a couple of metres to allow for electrified overhead lines and you want it to be done safely it takes time... especially if you want to keep the trains running

Probably shutting down a section of line for a few weeks instead of trying to work in 6 hour possessions overnight would accelerate delivery and planning

Standardisation... modularity... built off site all would help

Probably hundreds of sma improves to take off a few weeks here and there or a month rather than a silver bullet that fixes it

Less risk on contractors would be the main one to accelerate the tender and procurement process though I think

 

[Boycott]

That being said, I always thought (a gut feeling without any supporting data to back that up) that there was a growing number of people in the country who supported 'left-wing' domestic policies, but were also socially conservative (i.e. supporting Brexit, less immigration, less internationalism, more patriotism etc.), so increasingly difficult for Labour to square the circle there.

This part of your post is something I have experienced. It's a conundrum to fix because these people do not vote on economic issues when their cultural grievances are more important to them. They had the most left-wing manifesto in 2019 but overwhelmingly voted for a three word slogan.

The right-wing media eco-system constantly jumps on the back of "woke" caricatures which has cultivated this voter bloc for the Tories. It's all based on stupid non-issues that make no difference to everyday living but if you're exposed to it a lot by the media you consume it seems like it's coming to your doorstep. And I don't think it was helped that a lot of the loudest voices in activist and social media circles who claim to speak for working class people come across like their entire idea of what it means to be working class is a caricature of a Charles Dickens book.

 

[Jippy]

This part of your post is something I have experienced. It's a conundrum to fix because these people do not vote on economic issues when their cultural grievances are more important to them. They had the most left-wing manifesto in 2019 but overwhelmingly voted for a three word slogan.

The right-wing media eco-system constantly jumps on the back of "woke" caricatures which has cultivated this voter bloc for the Tories. It's all based on stupid non-issues that make no difference to everyday living but if you're exposed to it a lot by the media you consume it seems like it's coming to your doorstep. And I don't think it was helped that a lot of the loudest voices in activist and social media circles who claim to speak for working class people come across like their entire idea of what it means to be working class is a caricature of a Charles Dickens book.

That's what makes me wonder who beyond a hardcore cohort of Telegraph, Daily Mail and Sun readers really gives a shit about this stuff. I still come across loads of people who are unaware of the term 'woke' and outside of the right wing media you seldom hear it in real life.

It's basically 'PC gone made mad' mk II after that became a parody, rather than cultivating any new voter bloc.

 

[711]

This part of your post is something I have experienced. It's a conundrum to fix because these people do not vote on economic issues when their cultural grievances are more important to them. They had the most left-wing manifesto in 2019 but overwhelmingly voted for a three word slogan.

The right-wing media eco-system constantly jumps on the back of "woke" caricatures which has cultivated this voter bloc for the Tories. It's all based on stupid non-issues that make no difference to everyday living but if you're exposed to it a lot by the media you consume it seems like it's coming to your doorstep. And I don't think it was helped that a lot of the loudest voices in activist and social media circles who claim to speak for working class people come across like their entire idea of what it means to be working class is a caricature of a Charles Dickens book.

There is a problem in the left constantly blaming the media, however true it may be, because to to a Tory voter the message they hear is 'it's all the media's fault and you're too stupid to realise it'.

One thing everyone should have learned from the dismal efforts of Remain supporters in the referendum campaign is that calling people stupid just does not work. The left needs to be, ironically, a little cleverer than that.

 

[RedChip]

that calling people stupid just does not work.

I'm on the left, and this puts me off. Imagine if I were not on the left... So definitely unhelpful, and probably reinforces the view of a metropolitan elite not quite in touch with real working class people.

 

[Boycott]

That's what makes me wonder who beyond a hardcore cohort of Telegraph, Daily Mail and Sun readers really gives a shit about this stuff. I still come across loads of people who are unaware of the term 'woke' and outside of the right wing media you seldom hear it in real life.

It's basically 'PC gone made mad' mk II after that became a parody, rather than cultivating any new voter bloc.

I agree with you that it is 'PC gone mad' II except this stuff is driven by a new digital age.

It's a new pipeline and one that is more accessible and therefore more effective than ever.

For example, you mention The Daily Mail. Their reach is now mostly digital and while its print circulation is declining as with all papers, it's digital website is one of the most visited news sites in the world. It's ranked number six behind BBC, MSN, CNN, Google News and NY Times. Now Google News and MSN don't count because they are news aggregators rounding up important stories across the web rather than doing their own reporting. Take those two out and that would make Daily Mail the fourth most visited news site in the world which is pretty alarming given the content they put out. You can have complaints about the quality of the top three but they're far more professional and 'straight news' compared to the Daily Mail. It might be loads of people go there for sports news or celebrity news but the right-wing politics they push is very noticeable if you spend enough time on there. Which is a pipeline to seeing "anti-woke" crap posted all the time.

Then take into account Youtube which has an extremely right-wing algorithm, or Facebook which is proven to promote right wing content and Talkradio then you have a far bigger issue of people falling into believing these woke issues are a big deal. That's a problem for the left because
they just don't have an equivalent. There are different reasons behind this but I suspect the biggest is the simplest: reactionary content gets more engagement.

This wasn't a problem so much twenty years ago or even as recent as ten years ago I would argue. And I would agree that in the broader picture it is still a very loud vocal minority who obsess over this stuff. But in the right-wing media circle these views are held by the majority and it is their goal to spread it wide because they're not running on policies but fear. That still therefore makes it an important enough issue that should be combatted.

 

[DOTA]

That's what makes me wonder who beyond a hardcore cohort of Telegraph, Daily Mail and Sun readers really gives a shit about this stuff. I still come across loads of people who are unaware of the term 'woke' and outside of the right wing media you seldom hear it in real life.

It's basically 'PC gone made mad' mk II after that became a parody, rather than cultivating any new voter bloc.

The Tories ran focus groups in the lead up to 2019 election to try out culture war stuff and barely anyone had a clue what they were talking about so they dropped the idea. I'd suspect if they tried again they'd find the same answer.

 

[Boycott]

There is a problem in the left constantly blaming the media, however true it may be, because to to a Tory voter the message they hear is 'it's all the media's fault and you're too stupid to realise it'.

One thing everyone should have learned from the dismal efforts of Remain supporters in the referendum campaign is that calling people stupid just does not work. The left needs to be, ironically, a little cleverer than that.

That's true although it is part of a wider issue whereby Labour need to spend less time listening to a bunch of people who spend all day on Twitter and recording podcasts telling them what to do to win back the working class and instead actually go there and hear from them directly. The fact that North Shropshire which was a pro-Brexit constituency now have an MP who wants to rejoin the EU is a good indicator that in the real world voting intentions can be malleable.

 

[Kentonio]

Has anyone else noticed the Telegraph swinging wildly to the hard right in recent years or is it my imagination?

 

[DOTA]

Has anyone else noticed the Telegraph swinging wildly to the hard right in recent years or is it my imagination?

Can't say I've noticed a change but I've always considered the Telegraph to be the Daily Mail for people more obsessed with their stock portfolios than their house price.

 

[Boycott]

Has anyone else noticed the Telegraph swinging wildly to the hard right in recent years or is it my imagination?

I've noticed this too. I would put it down to that they are no longer "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" but instead socially conservative and fiscally conservative. That's how they're going to attract a new audience given it's historically been a paper for older more higher ground conservatives.

 

[711]

Has anyone else noticed the Telegraph swinging wildly to the hard right in recent years or is it my imagination?

I don't read it much nowadays but in the past it was always pretty hard right. What I would say in it's defence is that while the editorials were batshit loony they tended to keep actual news reports separate, and they were good at it. Barring news about labour disputes and things of course.