I'm sure she's wrong. Surely we'd have heard if the buses were being repeatedly hit by trams? The old Elf 'n Safety mob would have been on the case...
The Nottingham trams are fab. But again they are a good idea poorly managed. Part of the cost of running the trams is raised by a car parking charge on companies and businesses within Nottingham. In the case of Boots the nearest tram stop is a 20 minute walk from the nearest entrance to the factory complex and the trams really only run into and out of Nottingham city centre. This means that for the vast majority of the 7500 employees they are of no use at all. And yet they are now paying an extra £200 each a year for their car parking spaces as the company cannot afford to cover the £1.3 million levy it has to pay each year.
And of course a if you do want to use the tram is still £500 a year for each person buying a season ticket.
Effectively all that has happened is they have increased the cost of going to work substantially for everyone who works at Boots.
Rochdale’s recently resigned council leader is facing a police investigation after an official inquiry concluded that he lied over evidence he gave about child sexual abuse allegations.
The report also criticised Margaret Thatcher’s “remarkable” decision to award a knighthood to the suspected child abuser Cyril Smith. It said the knighthood in 1988 showed the “unwillingness of those at the highest level” to believe his victims.
Yad Vashem and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre still lionise Greville Janner for his actions over a suspected Nazi war criminal called Szymon Serafinowicz.
Suggesting that given at the time he was doing this he was also under investigation for alleged sex crimes it might be wiser to soft-pedal his role so angered an official of the Center that for moment I thought he was actually going to hit me.
The bus policy looks superficially attractive but there could be confusion if someone gets on and is told that this is the wrong type of bus for free travel.
Still it succeeds in casting Corbyn as in favour of the young and the Tories not so may work in the short term. Whether it is a sensible use of money is another matter.
On Syria, what would be the point of the UK joining any military action and what would be the plan? I hope May does not overplay her hand and I don’t see that there is anything wrong with getting Parliamentary approval first.
Er, because Parliament wouldn't give approval?
Isn't this a bit like saying "what was the point in Gordon Brown holding an election in 2010, when he was going to lose it"?
No. There is no rule that says Parliament votes on this kind of thing. Royal prerogative.
Cameron started a convention, which May could ignore.
I think Blair may have started the convention - or possibly even Major: there was certainly a vote on something before the Gulf War.
May could ignore the convention but it would be stupid politics as there'd be a vote sooner or later anyway.
This isn't an area I've looked into deeply, but she might be.
AIUI the Nottingham tram is losing many millions per year in running costs (citation required), and with the recent western extension, it is important for it to be seen as a success. Therefore price the rides so more people go on t'tram than t'bus, especially as both services probably get council subsidies.
Then there's the issue of the budget not being infinite, and the money spent subsidising the tram might be coming from services that would otherwise run to settlements away from the tram network.
But is it more about municipalising buses than helping the young?
Rumbled.....
Perhaps an expert on EU laws can clarify if this will constitute state aid ?
Interesting point. Quite possibly yes, it would (if EU law still applied).
I doubt it's been thought through in this detail but if there was such a ruling, the government could regulate all bus services to be brought within state control - though there'd have to be compensation paid, I'd have thought.
Bet365 are doing their 1/2 stakes back offer on the national each way bets. It is a very +EV offer and for existing customers, which is rare as rocking horse shit in the betting world.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What is it actually going to achieve, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
Agree entirely. I do not object in principle to the use of force to achieve a limited, specific aim with a reasonable chance of success (whilst accepting that nothing is ever certain). I object to it being used as a system of armed virtue signalling which will actually do nothing at all to resolve the situation in Syria nor prevent future CW attacks. Indeed all it will do is make a bad situation worse both for the people on the ground and the Arab view of the West. We do nothing but drive more and more people into the arms of the Russians.
Sky News Breaking - @SkyNewsBreak: Labour has suspended serving Rochdale councillor Richard Farnell after the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse concluded that the ex-council leader lied during his evidence last year
This isn't an area I've looked into deeply, but she might be.
AIUI the Nottingham tram is losing many millions per year in running costs (citation below), and with the recent western extension, it is important for it to be seen as a success. Therefore price the rides so more people go on t'tram than t'bus, especially as both services probably get council subsidies.
Then there's the issue of the budget not being infinite, and the money spent subsidising the tram might be coming from services that would otherwise run to settlements away from the tram network.
Bet365 are doing their 1/2 stakes back offer on the national each way bets. It is a very +EV offer and for existing customers, which is rare as rocking horse shit in the betting world.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What is it actually going to achieve, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
Agree entirely. I do not object in principle to the use of force to achieve a limited, specific aim with a reasonable chance of success (whilst accepting that nothing is ever certain). I object to it being used as a system of armed virtue signalling which will actually do nothing at all to resolve the situation in Syria nor prevent future CW attacks. Indeed all it will do is make a bad situation worse both for the people on the ground and the Arab view of the West. We do nothing but drive more and more people into the arms of the Russians.
Since the only aim that would make sense in the circumstances is the deposition/elimination of Assad, and since that cannot realistically be achieved by the means under discussion it is indeed difficult to see what the point of military action would be.
A better response would surely be to freeze his assets if they can be traced,
On topic, it's good politics and poor policy from Labour. It'll work well for them unless they end up having to implement it.
As an aside, free bus passes for the elderly are also a bad idea but it's a bad idea whose monetary cost is less than the political cost of scrapping it.
Rochdale’s recently resigned council leader is facing a police investigation after an official inquiry concluded that he lied over evidence he gave about child sexual abuse allegations.
The report also criticised Margaret Thatcher’s “remarkable” decision to award a knighthood to the suspected child abuser Cyril Smith. It said the knighthood in 1988 showed the “unwillingness of those at the highest level” to believe his victims.
She perhaps shouldn't have listened to her "experts" ?
Well her experts told her not to give Jimmy Savile a knighthood.
She also knighted Peter Morrison in her resignation honours.
On topic, it's good politics and poor policy from Labour. It'll work well for them unless they end up having to implement it.
As an aside, free bus passes for the elderly are also a bad idea but it's a bad idea whose monetary cost is less than the political cost of scrapping it.
I am sure there will also be lots of "accidental" misrepresentation (that it will apply to all buses) of it just like the student loan non-promise.
This isn't an area I've looked into deeply, but she might be.
AIUI the Nottingham tram is losing many millions per year in running costs (citation below), and with the recent western extension, it is important for it to be seen as a success. Therefore price the rides so more people go on t'tram than t'bus, especially as both services probably get council subsidies.
Then there's the issue of the budget not being infinite, and the money spent subsidising the tram might be coming from services that would otherwise run to settlements away from the tram network.
Much of the money is, as I mentioned, coming fro a levy on businesses, even when they are well away from the Trams and so cannot benefit.
Indeed. Much of, not all of.
The problem with the tram network in Nottingham is that it's not big enough to be a comprehensive system to replace or displace other public transport, and yet still costs a great amount of money to run that could improve those other services. Witness also Edinburgh. From my limited knowledge, I'd argue Manchester have got it much more right, and Sheffield less so (and they got lucky with Meadowhall).
On another note, Sheffield will soon be getting a new concept: the tram-train, where trams continue on along Network Rail metals. It's delayed and cost more than expected, but it is an interesting development.
I'm sure she's wrong. Surely we'd have heard if the buses were being repeatedly hit by trams? The old Elf 'n Safety mob would have been on the case...
Guy I work with was telling me recently that it was a nightmare, constant accidents with cars hitting trams and causing mayhem with traffic as they come off the line and takes hours to get cranes to get them lifted back on etc. Says he is regularly stuck in traffic jams due to it.
Bet365 are doing their 1/2 stakes back offer on the national each way bets. It is a very +EV offer and for existing customers, which is rare as rocking horse shit in the betting world.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What is it actually going to achieve, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
Agree entirely. I do not object in principle to the use of force to achieve a limited, specific aim with a reasonable chance of success (whilst accepting that nothing is ever certain). I object to it being used as a system of armed virtue signalling which will actually do nothing at all to resolve the situation in Syria nor prevent future CW attacks. Indeed all it will do is make a bad situation worse both for the people on the ground and the Arab view of the West. We do nothing but drive more and more people into the arms of the Russians.
Since the only aim that would make sense in the circumstances is the deposition/elimination of Assad, and since that cannot realistically be achieved by the means under discussion it is indeed difficult to see what the point of military action would be.
A better response would surely be to freeze his assets if they can be traced,
His assets will be in Moscow, if the Russians have any sense.
This isn't an area I've looked into deeply, but she might be.
AIUI the Nottingham tram is losing many millions per year in running costs (citation below), and with the recent western extension, it is important for it to be seen as a success. Therefore price the rides so more people go on t'tram than t'bus, especially as both services probably get council subsidies.
Then there's the issue of the budget not being infinite, and the money spent subsidising the tram might be coming from services that would otherwise run to settlements away from the tram network.
Much of the money is, as I mentioned, coming fro a levy on businesses, even when they are well away from the Trams and so cannot benefit.
Indeed. Much of, not all of.
The problem with the tram network in Nottingham is that it's not big enough to be a comprehensive system to replace or displace other public transport, and yet still costs a great amount of money to run that could improve those other services. Witness also Edinburgh. From my limited knowledge, I'd argue Manchester have got it much more right, and Sheffield less so (and they got lucky with Meadowhall).
On another note, Sheffield will soon be getting a new concept: the tram-train, where trams continue on along Network Rail metals. It's delayed and cost more than expected, but it is an interesting development.
Don't get me wrong, I love trams and I love the fact they have the system in Nottingham. But of course I am not one of those having to pay large sums to support it as I only use it when I visit. I do think that such systems should, by and large, be self financing. And certainly asking companies to pay such large sums when they and their employees get little or no benefit seems very poor.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What is it actually going to achieve, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
Agree entirely. I do not object in principle to the use of force to achieve a limited, specific aim with a reasonable chance of success (whilst accepting that nothing is ever certain). I object to it being used as a system of armed virtue signalling which will actually do nothing at all to resolve the situation in Syria nor prevent future CW attacks. Indeed all it will do is make a bad situation worse both for the people on the ground and the Arab view of the West. We do nothing but drive more and more people into the arms of the Russians.
Since the only aim that would make sense in the circumstances is the deposition/elimination of Assad, and since that cannot realistically be achieved by the means under discussion it is indeed difficult to see what the point of military action would be.
A better response would surely be to freeze his assets if they can be traced,
His assets will be in Moscow, if the Russians have any sense.
So we can be fairly sure they're not in Moscow in light of the last two months?
If the US changes its mind on bombing Syria, does May ?
So many capabilities have been "gapped" (eg SEAD/DEAD) that the UK's ability to conduct an autonomous operation in contested airspace outside a US led coalition is zero.
It provides the chemical composition identified as Novichok in the classified part of the report which is to be sent to all member countries and states it was pure and only able to be produced by a nation state. It was not included by name in the summary not to provide detail of its composition
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What is it actually going to achieve, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
Agree entirely. I do not object in principle to the use of force to achieve a limited, specific aim with a reasonable chance of success (whilst accepting that nothing is ever certain). I object to it being used as a system of armed virtue signalling which will actually do nothing at all to resolve the situation in Syria nor prevent future CW attacks. Indeed all it will do is make a bad situation worse both for the people on the ground and the Arab view of the West. We do nothing but drive more and more people into the arms of the Russians.
I don't fundamentally disagree with that. I think that there are 2 arguments.
1. We have drawn a red line on the use of chemical weapons. If you use them there are consequences. So we need to have a consequence. Not one that is going to materially change the war (which Assad has already won) but consequences that hurt.
2. The principal target for such consequences really should be those responsible not the poor schmuck who was doing what he was told under threat of death. So we should aim for Assad, his generals and commanders personally rather than airfields or abandoned chemical weapons factories. But we probably won't because it is more difficult and there are greater risks of collateral casualties.
I think the first argument just about justifies some action here, particularly if the second argument/option is feasible.
This isn't an area I've looked into deeply, but she might be.
AIUI the Nottingham tram is losing many millions per year in running costs (citation below), and with the recent western extension, it is important for it to be seen as a success. Therefore price the rides so more people go on t'tram than t'bus, especially as both services probably get council subsidies.
Then there's the issue of the budget not being infinite, and the money spent subsidising the tram might be coming from services that would otherwise run to settlements away from the tram network.
Much of the money is, as I mentioned, coming fro a levy on businesses, even when they are well away from the Trams and so cannot benefit.
Indeed. Much of, not all of.
The problem with the tram network in Nottingham is that it's not big enough to be a comprehensive system to replace or displace other public transport, and yet still costs a great amount of money to run that could improve those other services. Witness also Edinburgh. From my limited knowledge, I'd argue Manchester have got it much more right, and Sheffield less so (and they got lucky with Meadowhall).
On another note, Sheffield will soon be getting a new concept: the tram-train, where trams continue on along Network Rail metals. It's delayed and cost more than expected, but it is an interesting development.
Don't get me wrong, I love trams and I love the fact they have the system in Nottingham. But of course I am not one of those having to pay large sums to support it as I only use it when I visit. I do think that such systems should, by and large, be self financing. And certainly asking companies to pay such large sums when they and their employees get little or no benefit seems very poor.
I've never actually travelled on the Nottingham system. I have a dear friend who lives in Nottingham's eastern suburbs, and the tram system is a much use to her a chocolate teapot. We always either drive or use the park and ride, and there's little point in using the trams for our visits shopping in the centre. Despite there being an old railway line clear (although unusable at current) virtually behind her house.
I keep on meaning to plan a walk around the network, using the trams to get back, but my walking time's strictly limited atm ...
“I’m not one of those people that goes on about the liberal elite in London, but I don’t think he understands what makes the working classes tick outside of London and that is just hardcore industries. We’ve operated at our optimum as people when jobs give us meaning, and in the post-industrial hinterlands, he doesn’t understand that. I remember somebody at a meeting down in south Wales, an old guy, ex-miner, wanted his son to have a proper, real, blue-collar job, and he was saying: ‘What do you expect us to do, Mr Corbyn, make fucking love spoons out of hemp?’ I don’t think Jezza gets it, I don’t think he connects with people on that level, which is part of the reason we’re having political problems in Wales.”
“I’m not one of those people that goes on about the liberal elite in London, but I don’t think he understands what makes the working classes tick outside of London and that is just hardcore industries. We’ve operated at our optimum as people when jobs give us meaning, and in the post-industrial hinterlands, he doesn’t understand that. I remember somebody at a meeting down in south Wales, an old guy, ex-miner, wanted his son to have a proper, real, blue-collar job, and he was saying: ‘What do you expect us to do, Mr Corbyn, make fucking love spoons out of hemp?’ I don’t think Jezza gets it, I don’t think he connects with people on that level, which is part of the reason we’re having political problems in Wales.”
“I’m not one of those people that goes on about the liberal elite in London, but I don’t think he understands what makes the working classes tick outside of London and that is just hardcore industries. We’ve operated at our optimum as people when jobs give us meaning, and in the post-industrial hinterlands, he doesn’t understand that. I remember somebody at a meeting down in south Wales, an old guy, ex-miner, wanted his son to have a proper, real, blue-collar job, and he was saying: ‘What do you expect us to do, Mr Corbyn, make fucking love spoons out of hemp?’ I don’t think Jezza gets it, I don’t think he connects with people on that level, which is part of the reason we’re having political problems in Wales.”
“I’m not one of those people that goes on about the liberal elite in London, but I don’t think he understands what makes the working classes tick outside of London and that is just hardcore industries. We’ve operated at our optimum as people when jobs give us meaning, and in the post-industrial hinterlands, he doesn’t understand that. I remember somebody at a meeting down in south Wales, an old guy, ex-miner, wanted his son to have a proper, real, blue-collar job, and he was saying: ‘What do you expect us to do, Mr Corbyn, make fucking love spoons out of hemp?’ I don’t think Jezza gets it, I don’t think he connects with people on that level, which is part of the reason we’re having political problems in Wales.”
How come Corbyn did so well in the working-class areas of the North and Wales last year, then?
And indeed in the SW, Scotland, Midlands, and even getting 30% in Harborough and In Huntingdon.
Much as PB Tories like to convince themselves that Corbynism is an Islington phenomenon, it had appeal in WWC areas across the nation.
People seem to confuse the gains made by the parties in 2017 with their absolute support. It's probably true that Corbyn probably made greater gains with middle-class voters in 2017, and the Tories with working-class voters, but nonetheless, Labour still swept the board with the most economically downscale constituencies in 2017 (outside of Scotland anyway).
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
Lobbing a few missiles at Assad will really make little difference to him and in any case it is Macron and Trump leading on this not May
I remember reading recently that the Conservatives only hold one seat in the poorest 10% of constituencies in Britain (Walsall North), with the rest being held either by Labour or the SNP.
At the other end of the scale, Labour now hold a handful of seats in the wealthiest 10% of constituencies (including Sheffield Hallam and, I think, Canterbury -- but not Kensington), but the Conservatives still dominate there.
This supposed "realignment" is being pretty overhyped.
Labour's plan is excellent because it operates on the principle of levelling up rather than down in the quest for inter-generational fairness.What's good for the oldies,is good for the young-uns too.I pledge,along with several other disabled bus pass holders,I will unite with our OAP sisters and brothers to take direct action against any government which tries to take them away.Levelling up,level down and they could get a pitchfork up their backside.
“I’m not one of those people that goes on about the liberal elite in London, but I don’t think he understands what makes the working classes tick outside of London and that is just hardcore industries. We’ve operated at our optimum as people when jobs give us meaning, and in the post-industrial hinterlands, he doesn’t understand that. I remember somebody at a meeting down in south Wales, an old guy, ex-miner, wanted his son to have a proper, real, blue-collar job, and he was saying: ‘What do you expect us to do, Mr Corbyn, make fucking love spoons out of hemp?’ I don’t think Jezza gets it, I don’t think he connects with people on that level, which is part of the reason we’re having political problems in Wales.”
How come Corbyn did so well in the working-class areas of the North and Wales last year, then?
And indeed in the SW, Scotland, Midlands, and even getting 30% in Harborough and In Huntingdon.
Much as PB Tories like to convince themselves that Corbynism is an Islington phenomenon, it had appeal in WWC areas across the nation.
People seem to confuse the gains made by the parties in 2017 with their absolute support. It's probably true that Corbyn probably made greater gains with middle-class voters in 2017, and the Tories with working-class voters, but nonetheless, Labour still swept the board with the most economically downscale constituencies in 2017 (outside of Scotland anyway).
The Tories have never lost ABs since 1997 and Labour have never lost DEs, it is C1s and C2s who decide elections
On topic, it's good politics and poor policy from Labour. It'll work well for them unless they end up having to implement it.
As an aside, free bus passes for the elderly are also a bad idea but it's a bad idea whose monetary cost is less than the political cost of scrapping it.
I am sure there will also be lots of "accidental" misrepresentation (that it will apply to all buses) of it just like the student loan non-promise.
I am amazed that lists of grievances about what the baby boomers got vs what millennials get (university grants, affordable houses) never feature the all-the-tubes-and-buses-you-can-eat-at-any-time-of-day-or-night London Travelcard. That was bloody magic.
This isn't an area I've looked into deeply, but she might be.
AIUI the Nottingham tram is losing many millions per year in running costs (citation below), and with the recent western extension, it is important for it to be seen as a success. Therefore price the rides so more people go on t'tram than t'bus, especially as both services probably get council subsidies.
Then there's the issue of the budget not being infinite, and the money spent subsidising the tram might be coming from services that would otherwise run to settlements away from the tram network.
Much of the money is, as I mentioned, coming fro a levy on businesses, even when they are well away from the Trams and so cannot benefit.
Indeed. Much of, not all of.
The problem with the tram network in Nottingham is that it's not big enough to be a comprehensive system to replace or displace other public transport, and yet still costs a great amount of money to run that could improve those other services.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
Lobbing a few missiles at Assad will really make little difference to him and in any case it is Macron and Trump leading on this not May
That;s right. But British policy appears to be that we'll do whatever Trump does, and you don't have to be Jeremy Corbyn to think that this is an unwise position to be in. He might be a reckless warmonger and get us into all kinds of trouble. He might be a secret peacenik who believes that making threats and then being nice is the way to go (cf. North Korea). It seems to depend on his mood rather than any considered strategy, and really we should not sign up to it sight unseen.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
Lobbing a few missiles at Assad will really make little difference to him and in any case it is Macron and Trump leading on this not May
That;s right. But British policy appears to be that we'll do whatever Trump does, and you don't have to be Jeremy Corbyn to think that this is an unwise position to be in. He might be a reckless warmonger and get us into all kinds of trouble. He might be a secret peacenik who believes that making threats and then being nice is the way to go (cf. North Korea). It seems to depend on his mood rather than any considered strategy, and really we should not sign up to it sight unseen.
True but if anything Macron is even more enthusiastic about military action against Assad than Trump
Labour's plan is excellent because it operates on the principle of levelling up rather than down in the quest for inter-generational fairness.What's good for the oldies,is good for the young-uns too.I pledge,along with several other disabled bus pass holders,I will unite with our OAP sisters and brothers to take direct action against any government which tries to take them away.Levelling up,level down and they could get a pitchfork up their backside.
It's a great leveller unless you live in an area where the bus monopoly is run by Stagecoach - in which case you get nothing.
I remember reading recently that the Conservatives only hold one seat in the poorest 10% of constituencies in Britain (Walsall North), with the rest being held either by Labour or the SNP.
At the other end of the scale, Labour now hold a handful of seats in the wealthiest 10% of constituencies (including Sheffield Hallam and, I think, Canterbury -- but not Kensington), but the Conservatives still dominate there.
This supposed "realignment" is being pretty overhyped.
Correct – there is lots and lots of utter garbage about the parties being realigned on 'values' lines – Somewheres vs Anywheres (ugh, apologies for using that horrific term), flags vs fociacca etc etc. Yet the income ladder of constituencies shows you that wealth is almost as big a factor as it ever was, which is why the Labour team in my area hammer the local council estate but almost never canvas our street, where the average house price is £500,000+. There are some votes there for them, but not enough to make their time worth it.
I remember reading recently that the Conservatives only hold one seat in the poorest 10% of constituencies in Britain (Walsall North), with the rest being held either by Labour or the SNP.
At the other end of the scale, Labour now hold a handful of seats in the wealthiest 10% of constituencies (including Sheffield Hallam and, I think, Canterbury -- but not Kensington), but the Conservatives still dominate there.
This supposed "realignment" is being pretty overhyped.
Correct – there is lots and lots of utter garbage about the parties being realigned on 'values' lines – Somewheres vs Anywheres (ugh, apologies for using that horrific term), flags vs fociacca etc etc. Yet the income ladder of constituencies shows you that wealth is almost as big a factor as it ever was, which is why the Labour team in my area hammer the local council estate but almost never canvas our street, where the average house price is £500,000+. There are some votes there for them, but not enough to make their time worth it.
There's still a link between wealth and voting intention, but the link is weaker than it was a generation ago.
Labour's plan is excellent because it operates on the principle of levelling up rather than down in the quest for inter-generational fairness.What's good for the oldies,is good for the young-uns too.I pledge,along with several other disabled bus pass holders,I will unite with our OAP sisters and brothers to take direct action against any government which tries to take them away.Levelling up,level down and they could get a pitchfork up their backside.
It's a great leveller unless you live in an area where the bus monopoly is run by Stagecoach - in which case you get nothing.
What you need is a proper regulated bus network that is run as a public service not for chiselling profits on the most popular routes. Even Mrs T recognised the benefits of that, hence why she never deregulated the bus network here in London.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
Lobbing a few missiles at Assad will really make little difference to him and in any case it is Macron and Trump leading on this not May
That;s right. But British policy appears to be that we'll do whatever Trump does, and you don't have to be Jeremy Corbyn to think that this is an unwise position to be in. He might be a reckless warmonger and get us into all kinds of trouble. He might be a secret peacenik who believes that making threats and then being nice is the way to go (cf. North Korea). It seems to depend on his mood rather than any considered strategy, and really we should not sign up to it sight unseen.
Ooooh, very satirical, but I wonder if there are any recent precedents for a UK PM taking a similar stance towards a US President? Given the decency displayed by the French on that occasion in resisting the blandishments of the repulsive Blair and Bush, I will find a crumb of comfort in doing whatever we do, if Macron is with us.
I remember reading recently that the Conservatives only hold one seat in the poorest 10% of constituencies in Britain (Walsall North), with the rest being held either by Labour or the SNP.
At the other end of the scale, Labour now hold a handful of seats in the wealthiest 10% of constituencies (including Sheffield Hallam and, I think, Canterbury -- but not Kensington), but the Conservatives still dominate there.
This supposed "realignment" is being pretty overhyped.
Correct – there is lots and lots of utter garbage about the parties being realigned on 'values' lines – Somewheres vs Anywheres (ugh, apologies for using that horrific term), flags vs fociacca etc etc. Yet the income ladder of constituencies shows you that wealth is almost as big a factor as it ever was, which is why the Labour team in my area hammer the local council estate but almost never canvas our street, where the average house price is £500,000+. There are some votes there for them, but not enough to make their time worth it.
There's still a link between wealth and voting intention, but the link is weaker than it was a generation ago.
I remember reading recently that the Conservatives only hold one seat in the poorest 10% of constituencies in Britain (Walsall North), with the rest being held either by Labour or the SNP.
At the other end of the scale, Labour now hold a handful of seats in the wealthiest 10% of constituencies (including Sheffield Hallam and, I think, Canterbury -- but not Kensington), but the Conservatives still dominate there.
This supposed "realignment" is being pretty overhyped.
Correct – there is lots and lots of utter garbage about the parties being realigned on 'values' lines – Somewheres vs Anywheres (ugh, apologies for using that horrific term), flags vs fociacca etc etc. Yet the income ladder of constituencies shows you that wealth is almost as big a factor as it ever was, which is why the Labour team in my area hammer the local council estate but almost never canvas our street, where the average house price is £500,000+. There are some votes there for them, but not enough to make their time worth it.
The wealth gap is still there but is not as big as the age gap now e.g. Labour do better with high earners and the wealthy than they do with the retired and the Tories do better with the poor and working class than they do with the young. Middle aged C1s and C2s remain the key swing voters
I'd recommend Rinkagate by Simon Freeman and Barrie Penrose, and the The Last Word, by Auberon Waugh.
I was 12 at the time of the trial. As I recall, the general view was that no one really cared whether or not Thorpe was guilty. Scott was seen as a spiteful blackmailer, and Thorpe would have been acquitted if he'd shot him in front of a dozen witnesses.
And indeed in the SW, Scotland, Midlands, and even getting 30% in Harborough and In Huntingdon.
Much as PB Tories like to convince themselves that Corbynism is an Islington phenomenon, it had appeal in WWC areas across the nation.
People seem to confuse the gains made by the parties in 2017 with their absolute support. It's probably true that Corbyn probably made greater gains with middle-class voters in 2017, and the Tories with working-class voters, but nonetheless, Labour still swept the board with the most economically downscale constituencies in 2017 (outside of Scotland anyway).
I suspect some just like the idea that the Tories are on the side of the poor and the working class and so believe it to be true.
I'd recommend Rinkagate by Simon Freeman and Barrie Penrose, and the The Last Word, by Auberon Waugh.
I was 12 at the time of the trial. As I recall, the general view was that no one really cared whether or not Thorpe was guilty. Scott was seen as a spiteful blackmailer, and Thorpe would have been acquitted if he'd shot him in front of a dozen witnesses.
The people of North Devon (?) appeared to care at the election.
You wonder how Craig Murray got to be UK ambassador. I know,, a figurative (and almost literal - they're next door) posting to Siberia. But still.
You have almost to admire the determined self-delusion of someone who believes that ISIS might have developed the capacity to manufacture sophisticated nerve agents, and the ability to smuggle them undetected into the UK - and would then use them in a complicated plot to.... damage Russia's reputation.
I'd recommend Rinkagate by Simon Freeman and Barrie Penrose, and the The Last Word, by Auberon Waugh.
I was 12 at the time of the trial. As I recall, the general view was that no one really cared whether or not Thorpe was guilty. Scott was seen as a spiteful blackmailer, and Thorpe would have been acquitted if he'd shot him in front of a dozen witnesses.
The people of North Devon (?) appeared to care at the election.
Though Thorpe still got 23 000 votes in North Devon in 1979 and the Liberals won it back in 1992
And indeed in the SW, Scotland, Midlands, and even getting 30% in Harborough and In Huntingdon.
Much as PB Tories like to convince themselves that Corbynism is an Islington phenomenon, it had appeal in WWC areas across the nation.
People seem to confuse the gains made by the parties in 2017 with their absolute support. It's probably true that Corbyn probably made greater gains with middle-class voters in 2017, and the Tories with working-class voters, but nonetheless, Labour still swept the board with the most economically downscale constituencies in 2017 (outside of Scotland anyway).
I suspect some just like the idea that the Tories are on the side of the poor and the working class and so believe it to be true.
While Labour is still the party of the poor and working class as a percentage UKIP got more of its voters from that demographic while the LDs now get a higher percentage of their vote from the rich and upper middle class than the Tories do
I've never actually travelled on the Nottingham system. I have a dear friend who lives in Nottingham's eastern suburbs, and the tram system is a much use to her a chocolate teapot. We always either drive or use the park and ride, and there's little point in using the trams for our visits shopping in the centre. Despite there being an old railway line clear (although unusable at current) virtually behind her house.
I keep on meaning to plan a walk around the network, using the trams to get back, but my walking time's strictly limited atm ...
The trams are the same as those used in Nantes, another city where I spend a lot of time. Very nice - indeed much nicer than your average cross country train carriage.
I'd recommend Rinkagate by Simon Freeman and Barrie Penrose, and the The Last Word, by Auberon Waugh.
I was 12 at the time of the trial. As I recall, the general view was that no one really cared whether or not Thorpe was guilty. Scott was seen as a spiteful blackmailer, and Thorpe would have been acquitted if he'd shot him in front of a dozen witnesses.
The people of North Devon (?) appeared to care at the election.
I exaggerated, although it's notable that Thorpe still retained 82% of his vote from October 1974.
Auberon Waugh stood as a Dog Lover in the election.
I remember reading recently that the Conservatives only hold one seat in the poorest 10% of constituencies in Britain (Walsall North), with the rest being held either by Labour or the SNP.
At the other end of the scale, Labour now hold a handful of seats in the wealthiest 10% of constituencies (including Sheffield Hallam and, I think, Canterbury -- but not Kensington), but the Conservatives still dominate there.
This supposed "realignment" is being pretty overhyped.
Correct – there is lots and lots of utter garbage about the parties being realigned on 'values' lines – Somewheres vs Anywheres (ugh, apologies for using that horrific term), flags vs fociacca etc etc. Yet the income ladder of constituencies shows you that wealth is almost as big a factor as it ever was, which is why the Labour team in my area hammer the local council estate but almost never canvas our street, where the average house price is £500,000+. There are some votes there for them, but not enough to make their time worth it.
Its coming from America.....and while the old drivers of voting from the past may still hold true....they may be changing:
And indeed in the SW, Scotland, Midlands, and even getting 30% in Harborough and In Huntingdon.
Much as PB Tories like to convince themselves that Corbynism is an Islington phenomenon, it had appeal in WWC areas across the nation.
People seem to confuse the gains made by the parties in 2017 with their absolute support. It's probably true that Corbyn probably made greater gains with middle-class voters in 2017, and the Tories with working-class voters, but nonetheless, Labour still swept the board with the most economically downscale constituencies in 2017 (outside of Scotland anyway).
I suspect some just like the idea that the Tories are on the side of the poor and the working class and so believe it to be true.
While Labour is still the party of the poor and working class as a percentage UKIP got more of its voters from that demographic while the LDs now get a higher percentage of their vote from the rich and upper middle class than the Tories do
As discussed, there are marginal changes but as @Danny565 rightly said, the absolute picture remains very much wealth aligned. That is clear to see simply by plotting the richest and poorest seats against their vote.
That all said, as you argued the toss the other day that West London "was largely Tory" when simply googling a parliamentary map of West London shows this to be utter tripe, I expect you will continue to argue the toss under everyone else is bored of arguing with you. I have work to do!
Labour's plan is excellent because it operates on the principle of levelling up rather than down in the quest for inter-generational fairness.What's good for the oldies,is good for the young-uns too.I pledge,along with several other disabled bus pass holders,I will unite with our OAP sisters and brothers to take direct action against any government which tries to take them away.Levelling up,level down and they could get a pitchfork up their backside.
It's a great leveller unless you live in an area where the bus monopoly is run by Stagecoach - in which case you get nothing.
What you need is a proper regulated bus network that is run as a public service not for chiselling profits on the most popular routes. Even Mrs T recognised the benefits of that, hence why she never deregulated the bus network here in London.
Yes but Jezza isn't proposing nor has budgeted for that.
Hence will end up with a very unfair system / postcode lottery for his £1.4Bn
I'd recommend Rinkagate by Simon Freeman and Barrie Penrose, and the The Last Word, by Auberon Waugh.
I was 12 at the time of the trial. As I recall, the general view was that no one really cared whether or not Thorpe was guilty. Scott was seen as a spiteful blackmailer, and Thorpe would have been acquitted if he'd shot him in front of a dozen witnesses.
Cheers.
I still love the impartial summing up at the trial.
I'd recommend Rinkagate by Simon Freeman and Barrie Penrose, and the The Last Word, by Auberon Waugh.
I was 12 at the time of the trial. As I recall, the general view was that no one really cared whether or not Thorpe was guilty. Scott was seen as a spiteful blackmailer, and Thorpe would have been acquitted if he'd shot him in front of a dozen witnesses.
I was at University where the unexpurgated trial testimony swiftly made the rounds at the Union...'A Very English Scandal' (upon which the TV series is based) is very good too - and of course there's Peter Cook's immortal 'Judge's Summing Up'.....'Entirely a matter for you' (to the jury, having just traduced a witness...)
Labour's plan is excellent because it operates on the principle of levelling up rather than down in the quest for inter-generational fairness.What's good for the oldies,is good for the young-uns too.I pledge,along with several other disabled bus pass holders,I will unite with our OAP sisters and brothers to take direct action against any government which tries to take them away.Levelling up,level down and they could get a pitchfork up their backside.
It's a great leveller unless you live in an area where the bus monopoly is run by Stagecoach - in which case you get nothing.
What you need is a proper regulated bus network that is run as a public service not for chiselling profits on the most popular routes. Even Mrs T recognised the benefits of that, hence why she never deregulated the bus network here in London.
Yes but Jezza isn't proposing nor has budgeted for that.
Hence will end up with a very unfair system / postcode lottery for his £1.4Bn
Presumably the idea is to bounce them into regulation – that could be a shrewd move as deregulation has been an unmitigated failure. The buses outside London, with a handful or exceptions, are generally grotty, infrequent, low-tech and dismal.
And indeed in the SW, Scotland, Midlands, and even getting 30% in Harborough and In Huntingdon.
Much as PB Tories like to convince themselves that Corbynism is an Islington phenomenon, it had appeal in WWC areas across the nation.
People seem to confuse the gains made by the parties in 2017 with their absolute support. It's probably true that Corbyn probably made greater gains with middle-class voters in 2017, and the Tories with working-class voters, but nonetheless, Labour still swept the board with the most economically downscale constituencies in 2017 (outside of Scotland anyway).
I suspect some just like the idea that the Tories are on the side of the poor and the working class and so believe it to be true.
While Labour is still the party of the poor and working class as a percentage UKIP got more of its voters from that demographic while the LDs now get a higher percentage of their vote from the rich and upper middle class than the Tories do
As discussed, there are marginal changes but as @Danny565 rightly said, the absolute picture remains very much wealth aligned. That is clear to see simply by plotting the richest and poorest seats against their vote.
That all said, as you argued the toss the other day that West London "was largely Tory" when simply googling a parliamentary map of West London shows this to be utter tripe, I expect you will continue to argue the toss under everyone else is bored of arguing with you. I have work to do!
First paragraph is largely correct, the poshest voters are now LD Remainers and the most working class voters are often Leave voters who voted UKIP in 2015 but the Tories still lead overall with the wealthiest voters and Labour lead with the poorest voters.
In terms of your second paragraph my point remains e.g. despite Labour having most seats in the London Assembly the London West Central Assembly member is a Tory as are West London seats like Chelsea and Fulham, Putney, Cities of London and Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth and Westminster councils, again all in West London
I'd recommend Rinkagate by Simon Freeman and Barrie Penrose, and the The Last Word, by Auberon Waugh.
I was 12 at the time of the trial. As I recall, the general view was that no one really cared whether or not Thorpe was guilty. Scott was seen as a spiteful blackmailer, and Thorpe would have been acquitted if he'd shot him in front of a dozen witnesses.
Cheers.
I still love the impartial summing up at the trial.
He wasn't wrong to describe Scott in the manner he did.
He was entirely wrong to describe Thorpe and his co-defendants as "men of unblemished reputation."
The Head of the Syrian Chemical Weapons programme and good friend of the Assads is a Mr Amr Armanazi (how apt) who has two sons living and working in Britain with British citizenship. I suspect that quite a lot of the assets of the Assads and their coterie are in financial centres where action could be taken.
See my post yesterday about possible scandals in the wealth management sector.
The Head of the Syrian Chemical Weapons programme and good friend of the Assads is a Mr Amr Armanazi (how apt) who has two sons living and working in Britain with British citizenship. I suspect that quite a lot of the assets of the Assads and their coterie are in financial centres where action could be taken.
See my post yesterday about possible scandals in the wealth management sector.
Well Mrs Assad is still a British Citizen as well. We haven't stripped her of it.
Labour's plan is excellent because it operates on the principle of levelling up rather than down in the quest for inter-generational fairness.What's good for the oldies,is good for the young-uns too.I pledge,along with several other disabled bus pass holders,I will unite with our OAP sisters and brothers to take direct action against any government which tries to take them away.Levelling up,level down and they could get a pitchfork up their backside.
It's a great leveller unless you live in an area where the bus monopoly is run by Stagecoach - in which case you get nothing.
What you need is a proper regulated bus network that is run as a public service not for chiselling profits on the most popular routes. Even Mrs T recognised the benefits of that, hence why she never deregulated the bus network here in London.
Yes but Jezza isn't proposing nor has budgeted for that.
Hence will end up with a very unfair system / postcode lottery for his £1.4Bn
Presumably the idea is to bounce them into regulation – that could be a shrewd move as deregulation has been an unmitigated failure. The buses outside London, with a handful or exceptions, are generally grotty, infrequent, low-tech and dismal.
TFL's revenues are on the down and down - despite their shiny buses. Too many people cycling no doubt - or uber. Perhaps why Jezza wants to prop them up before unionised workers feel the pinch ?
"Transport for London (TfL) has insisted it is not facing a financial crisis despite planning for a near £1bn deficit next year after a surprise fall in passenger numbers."
"At the same time, the number of people cycling in central London is at record numbers, up 5.8 per cent year on year to 173,000 journeys a day within the congestion charge zone."
"However, the number of bus miles operated is due to be cut by seven per cent over the next five years. This means the only way to keep bus income stable is for bus occupancy to increase by 11 per cent. "
Labour's plan is excellent because it operates on the principle of levelling up rather than down in the quest for inter-generational fairness.What's good for the oldies,is good for the young-uns too.I pledge,along with several other disabled bus pass holders,I will unite with our OAP sisters and brothers to take direct action against any government which tries to take them away.Levelling up,level down and they could get a pitchfork up their backside.
It's a great leveller unless you live in an area where the bus monopoly is run by Stagecoach - in which case you get nothing.
What you need is a proper regulated bus network that is run as a public service not for chiselling profits on the most popular routes. Even Mrs T recognised the benefits of that, hence why she never deregulated the bus network here in London.
Yes but Jezza isn't proposing nor has budgeted for that.
Hence will end up with a very unfair system / postcode lottery for his £1.4Bn
Presumably the idea is to bounce them into regulation – that could be a shrewd move as deregulation has been an unmitigated failure. The buses outside London, with a handful or exceptions, are generally grotty, infrequent, low-tech and dismal.
TFL's revenues are on the down and down - despite their shiny buses. Too many people cycling no doubt - or uber. Perhaps why Jezza wants to prop them up before unionised workers feel the pinch ?
"Transport for London (TfL) has insisted it is not facing a financial crisis despite planning for a near £1bn deficit next year after a surprise fall in passenger numbers."
"At the same time, the number of people cycling in central London is at record numbers, up 5.8 per cent year on year to 173,000 journeys a day within the congestion charge zone."
Something Khan's fare freeze is not helping. Politically positive, financially disastrous.
I remember reading recently that the Conservatives only hold one seat in the poorest 10% of constituencies in Britain (Walsall North), with the rest being held either by Labour or the SNP.
At the other end of the scale, Labour now hold a handful of seats in the wealthiest 10% of constituencies (including Sheffield Hallam and, I think, Canterbury -- but not Kensington), but the Conservatives still dominate there.
This supposed "realignment" is being pretty overhyped.
The Tory vote increase correlated to Brexit sentiment, whereas the Labour vote went up pretty much... everywhere and the strongest correlation I found was to previous non voters. The link within constituency for wealth distribution is still there though.
To take a somewhat parochial example near me, I imagine Aaron Bell (Tissue Price) would have knocked every door of Tickhill, whereas Flint would have got a huge majority in Edlington.
Labour's plan is excellent because it operates on the principle of levelling up rather than down in the quest for inter-generational fairness.What's good for the oldies,is good for the young-uns too.I pledge,along with several other disabled bus pass holders,I will unite with our OAP sisters and brothers to take direct action against any government which tries to take them away.Levelling up,level down and they could get a pitchfork up their backside.
It's a great leveller unless you live in an area where the bus monopoly is run by Stagecoach - in which case you get nothing.
What you need is a proper regulated bus network that is run as a public service not for chiselling profits on the most popular routes. Even Mrs T recognised the benefits of that, hence why she never deregulated the bus network here in London.
Yes but Jezza isn't proposing nor has budgeted for that.
Hence will end up with a very unfair system / postcode lottery for his £1.4Bn
Presumably the idea is to bounce them into regulation – that could be a shrewd move as deregulation has been an unmitigated failure. The buses outside London, with a handful or exceptions, are generally grotty, infrequent, low-tech and dismal.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, how in the name of heaven would regulation or nationalisation make any difference? If you the taxpayer want to pay for delightful, frequent, hi-tech bus services on hardly-used rural and suburban routes, then of course the private sector will be delighted to provide them. Ownership and regulation has basically nothing to do with it, except that nationalised industries as we all well know generally provide worse service than private companies given that they have no franchise to lose, no shareholders to please and therefore no interest in attracting customers, zero incentive to improve, and tend to be easily manipulated by unions in the producers' interest.
Labour's plan is excellent because it operates on the principle of levelling up rather than down in the quest for inter-generational fairness.What's good for the oldies,is good for the young-uns too.I pledge,along with several other disabled bus pass holders,I will unite with our OAP sisters and brothers to take direct action against any government which tries to take them away.Levelling up,level down and they could get a pitchfork up their backside.
It's a great leveller unless you live in an area where the bus monopoly is run by Stagecoach - in which case you get nothing.
What you need is a proper regulated bus network that is run as a public service not for chiselling profits on the most popular routes. Even Mrs T recognised the benefits of that, hence why she never deregulated the bus network here in London.
Yes but Jezza isn't proposing nor has budgeted for that.
Hence will end up with a very unfair system / postcode lottery for his £1.4Bn
Presumably the idea is to bounce them into regulation – that could be a shrewd move as deregulation has been an unmitigated failure. The buses outside London, with a handful or exceptions, are generally grotty, infrequent, low-tech and dismal.
TFL's revenues are on the down and down - despite their shiny buses. Too many people cycling no doubt - or uber. Perhaps why Jezza wants to prop them up before unionised workers feel the pinch ?
"Transport for London (TfL) has insisted it is not facing a financial crisis despite planning for a near £1bn deficit next year after a surprise fall in passenger numbers."
"At the same time, the number of people cycling in central London is at record numbers, up 5.8 per cent year on year to 173,000 journeys a day within the congestion charge zone."
Something Khan's fare freeze is not helping. Politically positive, financially disastrous.
Corbyn would be able to subsidise this heavily unionised sector of his core support via this "taxpayer funded bus passes" idea. That's what this idea is all about.
The Head of the Syrian Chemical Weapons programme and good friend of the Assads is a Mr Amr Armanazi (how apt) who has two sons living and working in Britain with British citizenship. I suspect that quite a lot of the assets of the Assads and their coterie are in financial centres where action could be taken.
See my post yesterday about possible scandals in the wealth management sector.
Well Mrs Assad is still a British Citizen as well. We haven't stripped her of it.
Why not? She can have Syrian citizenship. And action like that accompanied by freezing of assets here, inability to move money here or travel etc would achieve more than lobbing some extensive hardware into a desert, especcially as anything used to launch the chemical attacks will have been moved by now well out of reach.
The Head of the Syrian Chemical Weapons programme and good friend of the Assads is a Mr Amr Armanazi (how apt) who has two sons living and working in Britain with British citizenship. I suspect that quite a lot of the assets of the Assads and their coterie are in financial centres where action could be taken.
See my post yesterday about possible scandals in the wealth management sector.
Well Mrs Assad is still a British Citizen as well. We haven't stripped her of it.
Why not? She can have Syrian citizenship. And action like that accompanied by freezing of assets here, inability to move money here or travel etc would achieve more than lobbing some extensive hardware into a desert, especcially as anything used to launch the chemical attacks will have been moved by now well out of reach.
I don't know. Also my understanding from a segment on Radio Daily Mirror the other day (moaning by a human rights lawyer that we were stripping citizenship of ISIS fighters), that the government can pretty much sign a bit of paper stating it is in the public good to do so and it is done (subject to an appeal, but they rarely overturn the original decision).
How can they prove this - really? I thought there was some doubt about whether Queen Victoria was even her father’s daughter and that somewhere aound the time of the Richard Gaunt there was doubt about the paternity of one of the Plantagenet kings (can’t remember which) let alone going back to Mohammed, where details of his life - let alone of his descendants - are in reality pretty sketchy.
Labour's plan is excellent because it operates on the principle of levelling up rather than down in the quest for inter-generational fairness.What's good for the oldies,is good for the young-uns too.I pledge,along with several other disabled bus pass holders,I will unite with our OAP sisters and brothers to take direct action against any government which tries to take them away.Levelling up,level down and they could get a pitchfork up their backside.
It's a great leveller unless you live in an area where the bus monopoly is run by Stagecoach - in which case you get nothing.
What you need is a proper regulated bus network that is run as a public service not for chiselling profits on the most popular routes. Even Mrs T recognised the benefits of that, hence why she never deregulated the bus network here in London.
Yes but Jezza isn't proposing nor has budgeted for that.
Hence will end up with a very unfair system / postcode lottery for his £1.4Bn
Presumably the idea is to bounce them into regulation – that could be a shrewd move as deregulation has been an unmitigated failure. The buses outside London, with a handful or exceptions, are generally grotty, infrequent, low-tech and dismal.
Buses are generally speaking the form of transport of last resort. You can make them as nice as possible (and those in W Yorks are modern, WiFi enabled, comfortable and so on), and they still go where they want, when they want and take forever over it - with the added bonus of the lottery of the person you end up sat next to.
“I’m not one of those people that goes on about the liberal elite in London, but I don’t think he understands what makes the working classes tick outside of London and that is just hardcore industries. We’ve operated at our optimum as people when jobs give us meaning, and in the post-industrial hinterlands, he doesn’t understand that. I remember somebody at a meeting down in south Wales, an old guy, ex-miner, wanted his son to have a proper, real, blue-collar job, and he was saying: ‘What do you expect us to do, Mr Corbyn, make fucking love spoons out of hemp?’ I don’t think Jezza gets it, I don’t think he connects with people on that level, which is part of the reason we’re having political problems in Wales.”
Even if that were true, which it isn't, how in the name of heaven would regulation or nationalisation make any difference? If you the taxpayer want to pay for delightful, frequent, hi-tech bus services on hardly-used rural and suburban routes, then of course the private sector will be delighted to provide them. Ownership and regulation has basically nothing to do with it, except that nationalised industries as we all well know generally provide worse service than private companies given that they have no franchise to lose, no shareholders to please and therefore no interest in attracting customers, zero incentive to improve, and tend to be easily manipulated by unions in the producers' interest.
I am always stunned at statements as to what we really need. We really need roads without gridlock at rush hour, hospitals with both experienced practitioners and specialist skills in all areas and not just major cities, schools with the highest facilities for every pupil everywhere. Unfortunately there is only a fixed pot of money to fund this from.
This seems to me to be a policy to drive a further wedge between town and country. Our towns and cities are pretty well catered for with regards to public transport. However once you move beyond the conurbations public transport provision is risible, and the rural poor really suffer as a consequence.
This seems purely political to me as if you look at a voting map of the country and look at the areas that voted labour it is these that currently have good public transport provision and good frequency. I.e if you need to get to work / hospital / studies etc for fixed times then in 50% of the country you cannot rely on public transport. I support an increased provision but it needs to be focussed on joined up thinking in these areas, subsidising routes, and considering out of hours options for oldies in rural areas. It's all very well having a 9:30 start time for older users, but if they need to get to often far off health facilities then they need to be on the buses earlier for the good of everyone.
I remember reading recently that the Conservatives only hold one seat in the poorest 10% of constituencies in Britain (Walsall North), with the rest being held either by Labour or the SNP.
At the other end of the scale, Labour now hold a handful of seats in the wealthiest 10% of constituencies (including Sheffield Hallam and, I think, Canterbury -- but not Kensington), but the Conservatives still dominate there.
This supposed "realignment" is being pretty overhyped.
The Tory vote increase correlated to Brexit sentiment, whereas the Labour vote went up pretty much... everywhere and the strongest correlation I found was to previous non voters. The link within constituency for wealth distribution is still there though.
To take a somewhat parochial example near me, I imagine Aaron Bell (Tissue Price) would have knocked every door of Tickhill, whereas Flint would have got a huge majority in Edlington.
The age/education correlation is much stronger than the wealth one. In Broxtowe, by far the strongest Labour vote was in one of the wealthiest parts of the seat, because it was dominated by university people (lecturers and students and staff), while in the poorest parts of the seat (and there are pockets of real poverty there) most people never voted at all. The Tory strength was in retired non-academic areas.
The Head of the Syrian Chemical Weapons programme and good friend of the Assads is a Mr Amr Armanazi (how apt) who has two sons living and working in Britain with British citizenship. I suspect that quite a lot of the assets of the Assads and their coterie are in financial centres where action could be taken.
See my post yesterday about possible scandals in the wealth management sector.
Well Mrs Assad is still a British Citizen as well. We haven't stripped her of it.
Why not? She can have Syrian citizenship. And action like that accompanied by freezing of assets here, inability to move money here or travel etc would achieve more than lobbing some extensive hardware into a desert, especcially as anything used to launch the chemical attacks will have been moved by now well out of reach.
She is a British citizen by birth, I believe. Are you suggesting British citizens should have their nationality revoked by executive order when they haven't been found guilty of any crime by a court of law?
I remember reading recently that the Conservatives only hold one seat in the poorest 10% of constituencies in Britain (Walsall North), with the rest being held either by Labour or the SNP.
At the other end of the scale, Labour now hold a handful of seats in the wealthiest 10% of constituencies (including Sheffield Hallam and, I think, Canterbury -- but not Kensington), but the Conservatives still dominate there.
This supposed "realignment" is being pretty overhyped.
The Tory vote increase correlated to Brexit sentiment, whereas the Labour vote went up pretty much... everywhere and the strongest correlation I found was to previous non voters. The link within constituency for wealth distribution is still there though.
To take a somewhat parochial example near me, I imagine Aaron Bell (Tissue Price) would have knocked every door of Tickhill, whereas Flint would have got a huge majority in Edlington.
In some constituencies, the old pattern still holds. In Hendon, Conservative support is solid in places like Mill Hill, Edgware, and Hendon proper. Labour support is solid in Colindale and Burnt Oak. In Hertsmere, Conservative support is much stronger in Radlett, Bushey and Potters Bar than it is in Borehamwood. The Conservatives remain absolutely dominant in the Stockbroker Belt, despite a lot of those constituencies voting Remain.
OTOH, there are prosperous middle class seats where Tory support has fallen away sharply, like Hornsey & Wood Green, Leeds NE, Manchester Withington, Streatham, Dulwich, Crosby.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
And indeed in the SW, Scotland, Midlands, and even getting 30% in Harborough and In Huntingdon.
Much as PB Tories like to convince themselves that Corbynism is an Islington phenomenon, it had appeal in WWC areas across the nation.
People seem to confuse the gains made by the parties in 2017 with their absolute support. It's probably true that Corbyn probably made greater gains with middle-class voters in 2017, and the Tories with working-class voters, but nonetheless, Labour still swept the board with the most economically downscale constituencies in 2017 (outside of Scotland anyway).
I suspect some just like the idea that the Tories are on the side of the poor and the working class and so believe it to be true.
While Labour is still the party of the poor and working class as a percentage UKIP got more of its voters from that demographic while the LDs now get a higher percentage of their vote from the rich and upper middle class than the Tories do
As discussed, there are marginal changes but as @Danny565 rightly said, the absolute picture remains very much wealth aligned. That is clear to see simply by plotting the richest and poorest seats against their vote.
That all said, as you argued the toss the other day that West London "was largely Tory" when simply googling a parliamentary map of West London shows this to be utter tripe, I expect you will continue to argue the toss under everyone else is bored of arguing with you. I have work to do!
First paragraph is largely correct, the poshest voters are now LD Remainers and the most working class voters are often Leave voters who voted UKIP in 2015 but the Tories still lead overall with the wealthiest voters and Labour lead with the poorest voters.
In terms of your second paragraph my point remains e.g. despite Labour having most seats in the London Assembly the London West Central Assembly member is a Tory as are West London seats like Chelsea and Fulham, Putney, Cities of London and Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth and Westminster councils, again all in West London
No, your original contention was that West London was "largely Tory". It isn't. It's largely Labour.
I'm sure she's wrong. Surely we'd have heard if the buses were being repeatedly hit by trams? The old Elf 'n Safety mob would have been on the case...
The Nottingham trams are fab. But again they are a good idea poorly managed. Part of the cost of running the trams is raised by a car parking charge on companies and businesses within Nottingham. In the case of Boots the nearest tram stop is a 20 minute walk from the nearest entrance to the factory complex and the trams really only run into and out of Nottingham city centre. This means that for the vast majority of the 7500 employees they are of no use at all. And yet they are now paying an extra £200 each a year for their car parking spaces as the company cannot afford to cover the £1.3 million levy it has to pay each year.
And of course a if you do want to use the tram is still £500 a year for each person buying a season ticket.
Effectively all that has happened is they have increased the cost of going to work substantially for everyone who works at Boots.
I can't for the life of me understand what people think a full military campaign in Syria is going to achieve. What can come of it, other than giving ISIS (or something similar) a way back? Are the people who will be killed by Western air strikes somehow more justified than the deaths caused by Assad's bombs?
It might make us all feel better to feel that we're Doing Something, but sometimes surely we do have to just realise that doing nothing is better than making things worse.
If you don't punish dictators for using chemical weapons other evil men will feel emboldened to to do the same in future.
Virtue signaling with missiles a year ago didn't stop either the Salisbury attack nor this latest atrocity in Syria. Why will it work better this time around?
I remember reading recently that the Conservatives only hold one seat in the poorest 10% of constituencies in Britain (Walsall North), with the rest being held either by Labour or the SNP.
At the other end of the scale, Labour now hold a handful of seats in the wealthiest 10% of constituencies (including Sheffield Hallam and, I think, Canterbury -- but not Kensington), but the Conservatives still dominate there.
This supposed "realignment" is being pretty overhyped.
The Tory vote increase correlated to Brexit sentiment, whereas the Labour vote went up pretty much... everywhere and the strongest correlation I found was to previous non voters. The link within constituency for wealth distribution is still there though.
To take a somewhat parochial example near me, I imagine Aaron Bell (Tissue Price) would have knocked every door of Tickhill, whereas Flint would have got a huge majority in Edlington.
The age/education correlation is much stronger than the wealth one. In Broxtowe, by far the strongest Labour vote was in one of the wealthiest parts of the seat, because it was dominated by university people (lecturers and students and staff), while in the poorest parts of the seat (and there are pockets of real poverty there) most people never voted at all. The Tory strength was in retired non-academic areas.
This is what Baxter found in England, but there was quite high variance:
The Head of the Syrian Chemical Weapons programme and good friend of the Assads is a Mr Amr Armanazi (how apt) who has two sons living and working in Britain with British citizenship. I suspect that quite a lot of the assets of the Assads and their coterie are in financial centres where action could be taken.
See my post yesterday about possible scandals in the wealth management sector.
Well Mrs Assad is still a British Citizen as well. We haven't stripped her of it.
Why not? She can have Syrian citizenship. And action like that accompanied by freezing of assets here, inability to move money here or travel etc would achieve more than lobbing some extensive hardware into a desert, especcially as anything used to launch the chemical attacks will have been moved by now well out of reach.
She is a British citizen by birth, I believe. Are you suggesting British citizens should have their nationality revoked by executive order when they haven't been found guilty of any crime by a court of law?
I thought you were a stickler for due process!
Thise who have gone to join ISIS have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law but have had, in some cases, their citizenship removed. Nor are those who have their assets frozen found guilty of a crime before such action is taken, as you well know.
There is a process for imposing sanctions people who are in charge of countries or organizations which behave very wrongly and where we/the international community feel it is in the public interest to do so, much as with the debate around imposing sanctions on Putin’s friends, none of whom have been found guilty in a court of law.
There is a case for Britain making it clear to the Assad regime that we are so revolted by their behaviour that none of the people at the top of that regime, including families, will be allowed in Britain and will not be allowed to shelter assets here, whether directly or through family members or in other creative ways.
Financial and similar sanctions and other steps are something that Britain can use - and reasonably effectively and in a targeted way - without causing collateral damage (ie death to innocents in Syria) - and it would be in Britain’s interests, IMO, not to be seen as the financial haven of choice for various world scumbags.
Comments
And of course a if you do want to use the tram is still £500 a year for each person buying a season ticket.
Effectively all that has happened is they have increased the cost of going to work substantially for everyone who works at Boots.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/12/former-health-minister-norman-lamb-blames-long-working-hours/
Doesn't sound like a bye election imminent - but will he stand in 2022 ?
Suggesting that given at the time he was doing this he was also under investigation for alleged sex crimes it might be wiser to soft-pedal his role so angered an official of the Center that for moment I thought he was actually going to hit me.
May could ignore the convention but it would be stupid politics as there'd be a vote sooner or later anyway.
The LibDems can probably wave goodbye to the seat - Lamb is immensely personally popular.
I doubt it's been thought through in this detail but if there was such a ruling, the government could regulate all bus services to be brought within state control - though there'd have to be compensation paid, I'd have thought.
A better response would surely be to freeze his assets if they can be traced,
As an aside, free bus passes for the elderly are also a bad idea but it's a bad idea whose monetary cost is less than the political cost of scrapping it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/04/12/british-airways-owner-iag-swoops-rival-norwegian-air-shuttle/
She also knighted Peter Morrison in her resignation honours.
The problem with the tram network in Nottingham is that it's not big enough to be a comprehensive system to replace or displace other public transport, and yet still costs a great amount of money to run that could improve those other services. Witness also Edinburgh. From my limited knowledge, I'd argue Manchester have got it much more right, and Sheffield less so (and they got lucky with Meadowhall).
On another note, Sheffield will soon be getting a new concept: the tram-train, where trams continue on along Network Rail metals. It's delayed and cost more than expected, but it is an interesting development.
http://www.sypte.co.uk/tramtrain/
1. We have drawn a red line on the use of chemical weapons. If you use them there are consequences. So we need to have a consequence. Not one that is going to materially change the war (which Assad has already won) but consequences that hurt.
2. The principal target for such consequences really should be those responsible not the poor schmuck who was doing what he was told under threat of death. So we should aim for Assad, his generals and commanders personally rather than airfields or abandoned chemical weapons factories. But we probably won't because it is more difficult and there are greater risks of collateral casualties.
I think the first argument just about justifies some action here, particularly if the second argument/option is feasible.
I keep on meaning to plan a walk around the network, using the trams to get back, but my walking time's strictly limited atm ...
Much as PB Tories like to convince themselves that Corbynism is an Islington phenomenon, it had appeal in WWC areas across the nation.
There is, of course, support for Corbyn and his across the country but not in equal measure.
Indeed May won the C2 skilled working class vote with Corbyn only winning DE unskilled working class votes and the unemployed
At the other end of the scale, Labour now hold a handful of seats in the wealthiest 10% of constituencies (including Sheffield Hallam and, I think, Canterbury -- but not Kensington), but the Conservatives still dominate there.
This supposed "realignment" is being pretty overhyped.
I'd recommend Rinkagate by Simon Freeman and Barrie Penrose, and the The Last Word, by Auberon Waugh.
I was 12 at the time of the trial. As I recall, the general view was that no one really cared whether or not Thorpe was guilty. Scott was seen as a spiteful blackmailer, and Thorpe would have been acquitted if he'd shot him in front of a dozen witnesses.
https://www.politico.eu/article/goldman-sachs-ceo-brexit-effects-not-as-bad-as-i-thought-for-now/
Russian ships are leaving their port in Syria 'for their own safety'
How to spot a Comrade Corbyn bus
Pretty awful too.
Auberon Waugh stood as a Dog Lover in the election.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/984014122370072578
(Refers to Dems in the US - worth seeing the rest of the tweets, maybe some applicability this side of the pond...)
That all said, as you argued the toss the other day that West London "was largely Tory" when simply googling a parliamentary map of West London shows this to be utter tripe, I expect you will continue to argue the toss under everyone else is bored of arguing with you. I have work to do!
Hence will end up with a very unfair system / postcode lottery for his £1.4Bn
I still love the impartial summing up at the trial.
In terms of your second paragraph my point remains e.g. despite Labour having most seats in the London Assembly the London West Central Assembly member is a Tory as are West London seats like Chelsea and Fulham, Putney, Cities of London and Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth and Westminster councils, again all in West London
He was entirely wrong to describe Thorpe and his co-defendants as "men of unblemished reputation."
See my post yesterday about possible scandals in the wealth management sector.
Family tree suggests the monarch is directly descended from the founder of Islam
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/queen-may-be-child-of-muhammad-k5xd9btcl
... but then aren't we all descended from the relatively few people way back in time?
http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/descended-royalty-math/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/12/fall-in-journeys-leaves-tfl-facing-near-1bn-deficit-next-year
"Transport for London (TfL) has insisted it is not facing a financial crisis despite planning for a near £1bn deficit next year after a surprise fall in passenger numbers."
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/revealed-tfl-facing-400m-budget-hole-as-passengers-desert-rowdy-and-crowded-tube-a3752971.html
"At the same time, the number of people cycling in central London is at record numbers, up 5.8 per cent year on year to 173,000 journeys a day within the congestion charge zone."
"However, the number of bus miles operated is due to be cut by seven per cent over the next five years. This means the only way to keep bus income stable is for bus occupancy to increase by 11 per cent. "
The link within constituency for wealth distribution is still there though.
To take a somewhat parochial example near me, I imagine Aaron Bell (Tissue Price) would have knocked every door of Tickhill, whereas Flint would have got a huge majority in Edlington.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-election-result-vote-share-increased-1945-clement-attlee-a7781706.html
You may not like it, or understand his appeal, but Jezza outperformed all of his predecessors. It was more than ageneric Labour swing.
This seems to me to be a policy to drive a further wedge between town and country. Our towns and cities are pretty well catered for with regards to public transport. However once you move beyond the conurbations public transport provision is risible, and the rural poor really suffer as a consequence.
This seems purely political to me as if you look at a voting map of the country and look at the areas that voted labour it is these that currently have good public transport provision and good frequency. I.e if you need to get to work / hospital / studies etc for fixed times then in 50% of the country you cannot rely on public transport. I support an increased provision but it needs to be focussed on joined up thinking in these areas, subsidising routes, and considering out of hours options for oldies in rural areas. It's all very well having a 9:30 start time for older users, but if they need to get to often far off health facilities then they need to be on the buses earlier for the good of everyone.
I thought you were a stickler for due process!
OTOH, there are prosperous middle class seats where Tory support has fallen away sharply, like Hornsey & Wood Green, Leeds NE, Manchester Withington, Streatham, Dulwich, Crosby.
https://goo.gl/images/Zh8ebU
Let me spell this out for you – below are all the west London postcodes spelled out roughly by parliamentary seat.
W1 Tory
W2 Tory
W3 Labour
W4 Labour
W5 Labour
W6 Labour
W7 Labour
W8 Labour
W9 Labour
W10 Labour
W11 Labour
W12 Labour
W13 Labour
W14 Labour
P.S. If you think Putney, Wandsworth and the City are in West London, you are even worse at geography than I feared.
Do you want to read that back?
https://twitter.com/jamestapsfield/status/984389843093479424?s=21
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pseph_2017regress.html
There is a process for imposing sanctions people who are in charge of countries or organizations which behave very wrongly and where we/the international community feel it is in the public interest to do so, much as with the debate around imposing sanctions on Putin’s friends, none of whom have been found guilty in a court of law.
There is a case for Britain making it clear to the Assad regime that we are so revolted by their behaviour that none of the people at the top of that regime, including families, will be allowed in Britain and will not be allowed to shelter assets here, whether directly or through family members or in other creative ways.
Financial and similar sanctions and other steps are something that Britain can use - and reasonably effectively and in a targeted way - without causing collateral damage (ie death to innocents in Syria) - and it would be in Britain’s interests, IMO, not to be seen as the financial haven of choice for various world scumbags.