Having lost the vote in parliament and given these numbers I can see Theresa May pushing for a referendum on her deal versus No Deal, which she would win. Will parliament allow her to do that?
Not much incentive for remainers to support that really. Or Corbyn.
A 3-way referendum would surely pass though.
The only referendum that could get through parliament is Deal/Remain.
These poll questions suggest the only clear referendum result would be on a May's deal versus no deal question, which would see May's Deal win handsomely. Which is presumably why she's keen to phrase the issue that way. A choice between May's Deal and Remain or between No Deal and Remain could go either way.
Which is why, though it seems least worst option, a referendum is still very difficult to arrange, since parliament is unlikely to want to frame it in such a way that the deal looks likely, but others will be equally keen to avoid the match ups that do not work for them. Hence why we may end up with 2 round or 3 way, simply as it is more of gamble for all of them.
Having lost the vote in parliament and given these numbers I can see Theresa May pushing for a referendum on her deal versus No Deal, which she would win. Will parliament allow her to do that?
No. The remainers would amend the bill to make sure that was an option. They’d probably also try and remove no deal.
Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.
It doesn't however follow that nationalisation automatically takes us back to the old ways (which were a feature of much of industry at the time), any more than Brexit would magically transport us back to the 1960s. Look at Royal Mail - the service is basically the same now as it was before privatisation, the only significant difference being that postage now costs twice as much and the bosses get paid even more than before.
Only because the monopoly at present , they are getting hammered on parcel side. I cannot wait to get my new shiny party line phone installed after waiting 12 months. Still I can spend lots of time on the windy platforms waiting on my train to arrive, or struggling with the flying pickets.
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
Also, don't strikes already happen (Southern Rail being a prime example)? Most people figure they have nothing to lose from a policy of rail nationalisation, except the parasitic middle man who takes profit rather than pouring it back into the system.
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Most liker AV
Most likely Deal versus Remain.
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new party
So we're agreed. Lots either.
Remain, Deal or No Deal
Parliament won’t allow No Deal anywhere near the ballot paper.
It will surely be Deal v remain.
Which with YouGov last week having Deal 50% Remain 50% could both lead to complete stalemate and also outrage amongst the third of voters who back No Deal and end up disenfranchised
I think many "Dealers" would be happy with "Remain". They prefer Remain but feel the referendum has to be honoured. That probably includes Mrs May.
Many "Remainers" would be happy with "Deal" if they can't have Remain as the least worst choice.
There is no possible way that everyone is going to be happy. There is going to be outrage no matter what.
Deal reduces the outrage as it is Remainers and No Dealers second choice. No Deal or Remain maximises the outrage as either side are adamantly opposed to the other at all costs
I think in a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, Deal is likely to win. I know several Remainers who are uncomfortable with overturning the first referendum and who will vote Deal.
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
Also, don't strikes already happen (Southern Rail being a prime example)? Most people figure they have nothing to lose from a policy of rail nationalisation, except the parasitic middle man who takes profit rather than pouring it back into the system.
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.
kyf puts the appeal of rail nationalisation very well, but to answer your point, Malcolm, I think that it would need to be accompanied by some clear policy on the amount of support that the nationalised system would get. It's no good nationalising it and then treating it as a cash cow, which is what successsive governments did, just like private companies have done.
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
Also, don't strikes already happen (Southern Rail being a prime example)? Most people figure they have nothing to lose from a policy of rail nationalisation, except the parasitic middle man who takes profit rather than pouring it back into the system.
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
£110 return before 0830, £78 after. Or as cheap as £19.50 each way if you plan in advance.
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Most liker AV
Most likely Deal versus Remain.
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new party
So we're agreed. Lots either.
Remain, Deal or No Deal
Parliament won’t allow No Deal anywhere near the ballot paper.
It will surely be Deal v remain.
Which with YouGov last week having Deal 50% Remain 50% could both lead to complete stalemate and also outrage amongst the third of voters who back No Deal and end up disenfranchised
I think many "Dealers" would be happy with "Remain". They prefer Remain but feel the referendum has to be honoured. That probably includes Mrs May.
Many "Remainers" would be happy with "Deal" if they can't have Remain as the least worst choice.
There is no possible way that everyone is going to be happy. There is going to be outrage no matter what.
Deal reduces the outrage as it is Remainers and No Dealers second choice. No Deal or Remain maximises the outrage as either side are adamantly opposed to the other at all costs
I think in a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, Deal is likely to win. I know several Remainers who are uncomfortable with overturning the first referendum and who will vote Deal.
Ah, but we would also find out how many leavers truly believe the deal is worse than remaining, and how many would stay put in outrage both at the fact of the referendum at all, and the lack of no deal/better deal.
I think remain would win pretty comfortably, if they are smart and don't go on about the insanity of the first vote and how stupid people were.
The referendum simply should ask the electorate to rank their preferences. The one with 50% + 1 once second preference is allocated is what we will do.
That’s it. No rounds. No exclusions. Just a simple choice from the three possible futures.
In my opinion each could win.
That creates a different problem of tactical voting. Because adding a second preference can work against your first preference.
Or are you going to disqualify every ballot that doesn't include a second preference?
This is nonsense. Up until the point at which your first preference is eliminated, a paper with 1,2,3 counts exactly the same as a paper with just 1. Once your first preference is eliminated, it too late to do it any harm; the former paper is transferred to its second preference and the latter paper set aside.
You've misunderstood the voting system being proposed, I think. There's no elimination
Having lost the vote in parliament and given these numbers I can see Theresa May pushing for a referendum on her deal versus No Deal, which she would win. Will parliament allow her to do that?
Not much incentive for remainers to support that really. Or Corbyn.
A 3-way referendum would surely pass though.
The only referendum that could get through parliament is Deal/Remain.
If we do get another referendum it could be interesting for the markets. Of course, we await to see if we get one, and what the question is, and what the options are (and perhaps the voting method as well).
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters,
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.
kyf puts the appeal of rail nationalisation very well, but to answer your point, Malcolm, I think that it would need to be accompanied by some clear policy on the amount of support that the nationalised system would get. It's no good nationalising it and then treating it as a cash cow, which is what successsive governments did, just like private companies have done.
It is pointless discussing it here in Wales as labour in Wales have just signed a new 15 year franchise with TFW
I think in a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, Deal is likely to win. I know several Remainers who are uncomfortable with overturning the first referendum and who will vote Deal.
It may well do, although I'd be a bit cautious mapping what people say before the (hypothetical) campaign on to what they do after the campaign. If you're subject to a few weeks of hearing people making arguments you disagree with for Leave, and arguments you agree with for Remain, you're likely to forget about the procedural issue of whether the referendum should have happened and vote for the side you want to win.
I think the same applies to Leave supporters who are currently luke-warm on "deal". Give them a few weeks of the whole Leave campaign being on-message and nobody important saying "this is worse than no brexit" and nearly all of them will vote for their side.
I think Remain actually has a higher chance if No Deal is on the ballot as well (whether with AV or with 2 rounds) because Leave voters will be hearing a lot of stuff from their own side about how terrible one or the other Leave option is. Not that Remain-supporting MPs will want to take this gamble.
Having lost the vote in parliament and given these numbers I can see Theresa May pushing for a referendum on her deal versus No Deal, which she would win. Will parliament allow her to do that?
Not much incentive for remainers to support that really. Or Corbyn.
A 3-way referendum would surely pass though.
The only referendum that could get through parliament is Deal/Remain.
Many would see this as a gerrymander and it would settle nothing. Hard Brexit is a significant minority in current polling. If we go the referendum way we have to be prepared to take full spectrum of outcomes on the chin.
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
Maybe you needn't. The Swiss railways apparently have lower fares and lower taxpayer subsidy. Nationalised since ~1905. Do the same here and make Michael Portillo Chairman given that he likes trains and it wouldn't be 'just a job'.
Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.
kyf puts the appeal of rail nationalisation very well, but to answer your point, Malcolm, I think that it would need to be accompanied by some clear policy on the amount of support that the nationalised system would get. It's no good nationalising it and then treating it as a cash cow, which is what successsive governments did, just like private companies have done.
Nick, I agree, my concern would be that it would follow the same path as the past and it would be used as a cash cow and starved of cash as you say. The transport infrastructure in UK is terrible compared to Europe, we have had no co-ordination or strategy whatsoever. In Europe they have integration of all systems and seem able to run them efficiently. I doubt we will ever get similar, more likely it would be badly managed , aggravated by unions and boom and bust on investment.
Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters,
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.
kyf puts the appeal of rail nationalisation very well, but to answer your point, Malcolm, I think that it would need to be accompanied by some clear policy on the amount of support that the nationalised system would get. It's no good nationalising it and then treating it as a cash cow, which is what successsive governments did, just like private companies have done.
It is pointless discussing it here in Wales as labour in Wales have just signed a new 15 year franchise with TFW
Surely Jezza's Labour party wouldn't countenance such a thing!
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
£110 return before 0830, £78 after. Or as cheap as £19.50 each way if you plan in advance.
The times I have travelled by train it has tended to be last minute and required some flexibility. The last time I made a similar journey, it was because a friend had fallen seriously ill, I needed to jump on a train later that day and I didn't know if I'd be back the same day or staying overnight... the time before that I needed to jump on a train to travel a similar distance at peak time to meet a potential client the next day, as I was freelancing at the time the cost was borne entirely by me... and so on, and so on.
The fact is that in your best case scenario, *if* you are able to plan in advance, it's about the same price as getting in your car (especially if you have to factor getting a taxi to your final destination into the cost). Not a ringing endorsement. Especially not if you're travelling with a passenger...
I think in a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, Deal is likely to win. I know several Remainers who are uncomfortable with overturning the first referendum and who will vote Deal.
It may well do, although I'd be a bit cautious mapping what people say before the (hypothetical) campaign on to what they do after the campaign. If you're subject to a few weeks of hearing people making arguments you disagree with for Leave, and arguments you agree with for Remain, you're likely to forget about the procedural issue of whether the referendum should have happened and vote for the side you want to win.
I think the same applies to Leave supporters who are currently luke-warm on "deal". Give them a few weeks of the whole Leave campaign being on-message and nobody important saying "this is worse than no brexit" and nearly all of them will vote for their side.
I think you make a good point about those with what we call procedural issues about the vote looking past that during and after the campaign, but I do think you've called it wrong in your second paragraph - I don't think there's any possibility of the leave campaign being on message, there are simply too many people at senior level who have utterly condemned the deal to get behind it in any meaningful way. Only some have said the deal is worse than remaining, and most of those probably hope for no deal or new deal to happen instead, but they cannot take back those words and it will be a focus of the remain campaign I have no doubt, that even prominent leavers think the deal is catastrophic.
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Most liker AV
Most likely Deal versus Remain.
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new party
So we're agreed. Lots either.
Remain, Deal or No Deal
Parliament won’t allow No Deal anywhere near the ballot paper.
It will surely be Deal v remain.
Which with YouGov last week having Deal 50% Remain 50% could both lead to complete stalemate and also outrage amongst the third of voters who back No Deal and end up disenfranchised
I think many "Dealers" would be happy with "Remain". They prefer Remain but feel the referendum has to be honoured. That probably includes Mrs May.
Many "Remainers" would be happy with "Deal" if they can't have Remain as the least worst choice.
There is no possible way that everyone is going to be happy. There is going to be outrage no matter what.
Deal reduces the outrage as it is Remainers and No Dealers second choice. No Deal or Remain maximises the outrage as either side are adamantly opposed to the other at all costs
Many would argue the third referendum was fixed before a vote was cast if there was not a "no deal" question.
Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.
It doesn't however follow that nationalisation automatically takes us back to the old ways (which were a feature of much of industry at the time), any more than Brexit would magically transport us back to the 1960s. Look at Royal Mail - the service is basically the same now as it was before privatisation, the only significant difference being that postage now costs twice as much and the bosses get paid even more than before.
Only because the monopoly at present , they are getting hammered on parcel side. I cannot wait to get my new shiny party line phone installed after waiting 12 months. Still I can spend lots of time on the windy platforms waiting on my train to arrive, or struggling with the flying pickets.
Royal Mail has a monopoly delivering to rural areas as no other company has to network to do it, they only really have competition in the cities and suburbs and towns
Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
Also, don't strikes already happen (Southern Rail being a prime example)? Most people figure they have nothing to lose from a policy of rail nationalisation, except the parasitic middle man who takes profit rather than pouring it back into the system.
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.
Utter nonsense. Take Scotland - everyone is getting excited about the introduction of Mark 3 stock on the inter7city services. That would be the same Mark 3 stock that operated with the push-pull sets back in the 80s. Meanwhile in the north of England we still have to endure the rancid Pacers- except every Saturday when strike action means you have to catch a bus.
Even Thatcher realised that rail privatisation was one privatisation too far.
Yes, the it will “improve the educati9nal system for everyone else” smacks of magical thinking.
I’m not a particular fan of private education, but destroying the bulk of the sector would be highly disruptive in the short to medium term.
Is there actually proof that the majority of private pupils would end up in state schools by removing state subsidies?
It wouldn't happen overnight but the more people that use the state school system the more people will push to improve it. Those individuals with the most push will tend to be those who are better off themselves.
It would make little difference as those private pupils would be sent by their middle class parents to either good or outstanding academies or comprehensives or free schools or any grammars still left. The idea barely any will end up in 'inadequate' or 'requires improvement' schools where the real problems in state education lie is absurd
Or they'll be home schooled, or possibly even sent abroad to school.
Meanwhile our top private schools will still be full of Chinese and Arab kids, for whom money is no object to get the best education in the world - and a good source of foreign revenues for the Exchequer.
What bollox. You are talking about a few elite schools. maybe if you lived in this country you would have a clue. Majority would go to the wall and state education would suffer.
You misunderstand me. The top 'public' boarding schools will remain full of foreigners and our own royalty, whereas most private day schools used by the middle classes will probably go under. Some parents will stretch themselves, some will choose state education (and may well move house to do so) and some will find other ways such as home schooling.
The idea that closing the private schools simply results in all the rich kids and their pushy parents ending up at the local 'bog standard' comprehensive, is likely to be incorrect in practice. The funding per pupil in the state sector would also need to be maintained, and in some areas where schools are already full there will need to be capital expenditure on expanding the number of places.
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Most liker AV
Most likely Deal versus Remain.
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new party
So we're agreed. Lots either.
Remain, Deal or No Deal
Parliament won’t allow No Deal anywhere near the ballot paper.
It will surely be Deal v remain.
Which with YouGov last week having Deal 50% Remain 50% could both lead to complete stalemate and also outrage amongst the third of voters who back No Deal and end up disenfranchised
I think many "Dealers" would be happy with "Remain". They prefer Remain but feel the referendum has to be honoured. That probably includes Mrs May.
Many "Remainers" would be happy with "Deal" if they can't have Remain as the least worst choice.
There is no possible way that everyone is going to be happy. There is going to be outrage no matter what.
Deal reduces the outrage as it is Remainers and No Dealers second choice. No Deal or Remain maximises the outrage as either side are adamantly opposed to the other at all costs
I think in a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, Deal is likely to win. I know several Remainers who are uncomfortable with overturning the first referendum and who will vote Deal.
According to YouGov Deal v Remain would be 50% to 50%
I think in a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, Deal is likely to win. I know several Remainers who are uncomfortable with overturning the first referendum and who will vote Deal.
It may well do, although I'd be a bit cautious mapping what people say before the (hypothetical) campaign on to what they do after the campaign. If you're subject to a few weeks of hearing people making arguments you disagree with for Leave, and arguments you agree with for Remain, you're likely to forget about the procedural issue of whether the referendum should have happened and vote for the side you want to win.
I think the same applies to Leave supporters who are currently luke-warm on "deal". Give them a few weeks of the whole Leave campaign being on-message and nobody important saying "this is worse than no brexit" and nearly all of them will vote for their side.
I think Remain actually has a higher chance if No Deal is on the ballot as well (whether with AV or with 2 rounds) because Leave voters will be hearing a lot of stuff from their own side about how terrible one or the other Leave option is. Not that Remain-supporting MPs will want to take this gamble.
How ridiculous it will look if DEAL wins. An option overwhelmingly rejected by parliament will have to be implemented by parliament. Ditto in the case of NODEAL. If NODEAL is on the ballot then the referendum will not be possible until infrastructure has been put in to cope with it. We wouldn't wanr to be caught unwares a second time, would we?
For the above an other reasons I doubt that a referendum will actually happen.
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Most liker AV
Most likely Deal versus Remain.
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new party
So we're agreed. Lots either.
Remain, Deal or No Deal
Parliament won’t allow No Deal anywhere near the ballot paper.
It will surely be Deal v remain.
Which with YouGov last week having Deal 50% Remain 50% could both lead to complete stalemate and also outrage amongst the third of voters who back No Deal and end up disenfranchised
I think many "Dealers" would be happy with "Remain". They prefer Remain but feel the referendum has to be honoured. That probably includes Mrs May.
Many "Remainers" would be happy with "Deal" if they can't have Remain as the least worst choice.
There is no possible way that everyone is going to be happy. There is going to be outrage no matter what.
Deal reduces the outrage as it is Remainers and No Dealers second choice. No Deal or Remain maximises the outrage as either side are adamantly opposed to the other at all costs
Many would argue the third referendum was fixed before a vote was cast if there was not a "no deal" question.
Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters,
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.
kyf puts the appeal of rail nationalisation very well, but to answer your point, Malcolm, I think that it would need to be accompanied by some clear policy on the amount of support that the nationalised system would get. It's no good nationalising it and then treating it as a cash cow, which is what successsive governments did, just like private companies have done.
It is pointless discussing it here in Wales as labour in Wales have just signed a new 15 year franchise with TFW
Surely Jezza's Labour party wouldn't countenance such a thing!
It has happened and is contracted so no nationalisation of railway here for at least 15 years
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
Why should I pay taxes to fund hospitals when I rarely use hospitals? Or elderly care? Or .... [substitute public service here]
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
Why should I pay taxes to fund hospitals when I rarely use hospitals? Or elderly care? Or .... [substitute public service here]
[Substitute public service here] is the worst run of all our services. [Insert party here] will sort it out when they get into power/have more time in power, though.
Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters,
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.
kyf puts the appeal of rail nationalisation very well, but to answer your point, Malcolm, I think that it would need to be accompanied by some clear policy on the amount of support that the nationalised system would get. It's no good nationalising it and then treating it as a cash cow, which is what successsive governments did, just like private companies have done.
It is pointless discussing it here in Wales as labour in Wales have just signed a new 15 year franchise with TFW
Surely Jezza's Labour party wouldn't countenance such a thing!
We know the Scottish sub regional branch office will nationalise it in first week of their reign in Scotland as they said they would do it, and they always keep their promises.
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Most liker AV
Most likely Deal versus Remain.
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new party
So we're agreed. Lots either.
Remain, Deal or No Deal
Parliament won’t allow No Deal anywhere near the ballot paper.
It will surely be Deal v remain.
Which with YouGov last week having Deal 50% Remain 50% could both lead to complete stalemate and also outrage amongst the third of voters who back No Deal and end up disenfranchised
I think many "Dealers" would be happy with "Remain". They prefer Remain but feel the referendum has to be honoured. That probably includes Mrs May.
Many "Remainers" would be happy with "Deal" if they can't have Remain as the least worst choice.
There is no possible way that everyone is going to be happy. There is going to be outrage no matter what.
Deal reduces the outrage as it is Remainers and No Dealers second choice. No Deal or Remain maximises the outrage as either side are adamantly opposed to the other at all costs
Many would argue the third referendum was fixed before a vote was cast if there was not a "no deal" question.
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
Why should I pay taxes to fund hospitals when I rarely use hospitals? Or elderly care? Or .... [substitute public service here]
Railways aren't a public service in the same way as those. If they were there would be no fares.
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AV
Most likely Deal versus Remain.
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new party
Possibly. It would definitely harm the Tory party. But under FPTP it wouldn't lead to many UKIP MPs.
Not necessarily, the highest ever UKIP voteshare was at general election 2015 when the Tories won an overall majority. Plenty of Labour voters voted UKIP
That's true. But who would the "disenfranchised" voters who were unhappy with Deal or Remain vote for? They would be mostly Tories or UKIP with some Labour. I suspect many wouldn't vote at all. "What's the point? The bastards ignore us anyway".
The way things are going, they will be spoilt for choice. They could vote Tory, if their local candidate or MP happens to be one of the nutters. They could vote for the original, now anti-Islamic UKIP. They could vote for UKIP2 as launched by Sked yesterday, or for UKIP3 expected to be launched by Farage tomorrow. Even Judea only had the two popular fronts!
Ahem.
People's Front of Judea Judean People's Front and Judean Popular People's Front (Splitters!!)
And the Campaign for a Free Galilee. The analogy was better than I thought.
Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
Also, don't strikes already happen (Southern Rail being a prime example)? Most people figure they have nothing to lose from a policy of rail nationalisation, except the parasitic middle man who takes profit rather than pouring it back into the system.
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.
Utter nonsense. Take Scotland - everyone is getting excited about the introduction of Mark 3 stock on the inter7city services. That would be the same Mark 3 stock that operated with the push-pull sets back in the 80s. Meanwhile in the north of England we still have to endure the rancid Pacers- except every Saturday when strike action means you have to catch a bus.
Even Thatcher realised that rail privatisation was one privatisation too far.
Network rail are a disaster and they are the nationalised part
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
For the same reason l pay more taxes to subsidise education when I don't have any children.
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
Why should I pay taxes to fund hospitals when I rarely use hospitals? Or elderly care? Or .... [substitute public service here]
Everyone uses the nhs throughout all stages of their life even if that is not in a hospital
Yes, the it will “improve the educati9nal system for everyone else” smacks of magical thinking.
I’m not a particular fan of private education, but destroying the bulk of the sector would be highly disruptive in the short to medium term.
Is there actually proof that the majority of private pupils would end up in state schools by removing state subsidies?
It wouldn't happen overnight but the more people that use the state school system the more people will push to improve it. Those individuals with the most push will tend to be those who are better off themselves.
It would make little difference as those private pupils would be sent by their middle class parents to either good or outstanding academies or comprehensives or free schools or any grammars still left. The idea barely any will end up in 'inadequate' or 'requires improvement' schools where the real problems in state education lie is absurd
Or they'll be home schooled, or possibly even sent abroad to school.
Meanwhile our top private schools will still be full of Chinese and Arab kids, for whom money is no object to get the best education in the world - and a good source of foreign revenues for the Exchequer.
What bollox. You are talking about a few elite schools. maybe if you lived in this country you would have a clue. Majority would go to the wall and state education would suffer.
expanding the number of places.
Exactly , the very rich will not be impacted. It is all the ordinary people trying to improve their children's lives that will suffer, and the state schools that will not be able to cope with the extra pupils. An ill thought out policy that will be good for no-one
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
Why should I pay taxes to fund hospitals when I rarely use hospitals? Or elderly care? Or .... [substitute public service here]
Railways aren't a public service in the same way as those. If they were there would be no fares.
Prrescription charges? In many cases they are significantly higher than the cost of drugs supplied, and indeed more than the pharmacist would charge on a private prescription.
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
Why should I pay taxes to fund hospitals when I rarely use hospitals? Or elderly care? Or .... [substitute public service here]
Everyone uses the NHS from craddle to grave even if some do not use a hospital
I think you make a good point about those with what we call procedural issues about the vote looking past that during and after the campaign, but I do think you've called it wrong in your second paragraph - I don't think there's any possibility of the leave campaign being on message, there are simply too many people at senior level who have utterly condemned the deal to get behind it in any meaningful way. Only some have said the deal is worse than remaining, and most of those probably hope for no deal or new deal to happen instead, but they cannot take back those words and it will be a focus of the remain campaign I have no doubt, that even prominent leavers think the deal is catastrophic.
Well, if you look at say a US political campaign, you have the primary where the candidates on your side have literally been running attack ads against each other, and sometimes at the end of a brutal primary you do see some effect in the polling, but come the general election nearly everyone seems to get the memo that lying Ted Cruz is now beautiful Ted Cruz or whatever.
That said you do still lose *some* voters who continue to believe the earlier version of reality and fail to download the updated firmware, and in a close race they could easily be enough to swing it.
Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.
It doesn't however follow that nationalisation automatically takes us back to the old ways (which were a feature of much of industry at the time), any more than Brexit would magically transport us back to the 1960s. Look at Royal Mail - the service is basically the same now as it was before privatisation, the only significant difference being that postage now costs twice as much and the bosses get paid even more than before.
Only because the monopoly at present , they are getting hammered on parcel side. I cannot wait to get my new shiny party line phone installed after waiting 12 months. Still I can spend lots of time on the windy platforms waiting on my train to arrive, or struggling with the flying pickets.
Royal Mail has a monopoly delivering to rural areas as no other company has to network to do it, they only really have competition in the cities and suburbs and towns
You mean the other companies cherry-pick the profitable bits and couldn't give a feck about providing a public service.
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Most liker AV
Most likely Deal versus Remain.
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new party
So we're agreed. Lots either.
Remain, Deal or No Deal
Parliament won’t allow No Deal anywhere near the ballot paper.
It will surely be Deal v remain.
Which with YouGov last week having Deal 50% Remain 50% could both lead to complete stalemate and also outrage amongst the third of voters who back No Deal and end up disenfranchised
I think many "Dealers" would be happy with "Remain". They prefer Remain but feel the referendum has to be honoured. That probably includes Mrs May.
Many "Remainers" would be happy with "Deal" if they can't have Remain as the least worst choice.
There is no possible way that everyone is going to be happy. There is going to be outrage no matter what.
Deal reduces the outrage as it is Remainers and No Dealers second choice. No Deal or Remain maximises the outrage as either side are adamantly opposed to the other at all costs
Many would argue the third referendum was fixed before a vote was cast if there was not a "no deal" question.
With extremist parties benefiting as a result
I doubt the Tories would benefit....
Nor would Labour, the highest BNP vote came in Labour areas
I think you make a good point about those with what we call procedural issues about the vote looking past that during and after the campaign, but I do think you've called it wrong in your second paragraph - I don't think there's any possibility of the leave campaign being on message, there are simply too many people at senior level who have utterly condemned the deal to get behind it in any meaningful way. Only some have said the deal is worse than remaining, and most of those probably hope for no deal or new deal to happen instead, but they cannot take back those words and it will be a focus of the remain campaign I have no doubt, that even prominent leavers think the deal is catastrophic.
Well, if you look at say a US political campaign, you have the primary where the candidates on your side have literally been running attack ads against each other, and sometimes at the end of a brutal primary you do see some effect in the polling, but come the general election nearly everyone seems to get the memo that lying Ted Cruz is now beautiful Ted Cruz or whatever.
That said you do still lose *some* voters who continue to believe the earlier version of reality and fail to download the updated firmware, and in a close race they could easily be enough to swing it.
And this is on an issue, not backing a party. The tribal instincts will be reduced - how many Tories would stand up vociferously for the deal in a referendum? Half?
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
Maybe you needn't. The Swiss railways apparently have lower fares and lower taxpayer subsidy. Nationalised since ~1905. Do the same here and make Michael Portillo Chairman given that he likes trains and it wouldn't be 'just a job'.
The Swiss network is very different in several ways, including size and usage patterns.
I think in a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, Deal is likely to win. I know several Remainers who are uncomfortable with overturning the first referendum and who will vote Deal.
It may well do, although I'd be a bit cautious mapping what people say before the (hypothetical) campaign on to what they do after the campaign. If you're subject to a few weeks of hearing people making arguments you disagree with for Leave, and arguments you agree with for Remain, you're likely to forget about the procedural issue of whether the referendum should have happened and vote for the side you want to win.
I think the same applies to Leave supporters who are currently luke-warm on "deal". Give them a few weeks of the whole Leave campaign being on-message and nobody important saying "this is worse than no brexit" and nearly all of them will vote for their side.
I think Remain actually has a higher chance if No Deal is on the ballot as well (whether with AV or with 2 rounds) because Leave voters will be hearing a lot of stuff from their own side about how terrible one or the other Leave option is. Not that Remain-supporting MPs will want to take this gamble.
How ridiculous it will look if DEAL wins. An option overwhelmingly rejected by parliament will have to be implemented by parliament. Ditto in the case of NODEAL. If NODEAL is on the ballot then the referendum will not be possible until infrastructure has been put in to cope with it. We wouldn't wanr to be caught unwares a second time, would we?
For the above an other reasons I doubt that a referendum will actually happen.
Deal and No Deal are the only Leave options short of complete SM and CU BINO available. Otherwise Remain which has already been rejected
Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters,
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.
kyf puts the appeal of rail nationalisation very well, but to answer your point, Malcolm, I think that it would need to be accompanied by some clear policy on the amount of support that the nationalised system would get. It's no good nationalising it and then treating it as a cash cow, which is what successsive governments did, just like private companies have done.
It is pointless discussing it here in Wales as labour in Wales have just signed a new 15 year franchise with TFW
Surely Jezza's Labour party wouldn't countenance such a thing!
We know the Scottish sub regional branch office will nationalise it in first week of their reign in Scotland as they said they would do it, and they always keep their promises.
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
Why should I pay taxes to fund hospitals when I rarely use hospitals? Or elderly care? Or .... [substitute public service here]
Why should I be subsidising rail travel when they still fleece me for £300+ if I need to travel across the country even with a months notice....
I think in a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, Deal is likely to win. I know several Remainers who are uncomfortable with overturning the first referendum and who will vote Deal.
It may well do, although I'd be a bit cautious mapping what people say before the (hypothetical) campaign on to what they do after the campaign. If you're subject to a few weeks of hearing people making arguments you disagree with for Leave, and arguments you agree with for Remain, you're likely to forget about the procedural issue of whether the referendum should have happened and vote for the side you want to win.
I think the same applies to Leave supporters who are currently luke-warm on "deal". Give them a few weeks of the whole Leave campaign being on-message and nobody important saying "this is worse than no brexit" and nearly all of them will vote for their side.
I think Remain actually has a higher chance if No Deal is on the ballot as well (whether with AV or with 2 rounds) because Leave voters will be hearing a lot of stuff from their own side about how terrible one or the other Leave option is. Not that Remain-supporting MPs will want to take this gamble.
How ridiculous it will look if DEAL wins. An option overwhelmingly rejected by parliament will have to be implemented by parliament. Ditto in the case of NODEAL. If NODEAL is on the ballot then the referendum will not be possible until infrastructure has been put in to cope with it. We wouldn't wanr to be caught unwares a second time, would we?
For the above an other reasons I doubt that a referendum will actually happen.
Like I said up-thread I think the solution that works for Deal and Remain is to make the referendum binding, like the AV vote. That way parliament don't have to implement a version they rejected earlier; They already passed the legislation to outsource that role to the voters.
No Deal would be a shit-show, though. It would have all the same problems as Brexit, and then some: Does No Deal mean you can't make any kind of deal? What about something to keep the planes flying? How much of a deal is too much?
Having lost the vote in parliament and given these numbers I can see Theresa May pushing for a referendum on her deal versus No Deal, which she would win. Will parliament allow her to do that?
Not much incentive for remainers to support that really. Or Corbyn.
A 3-way referendum would surely pass though.
The only referendum that could get through parliament is Deal/Remain.
Many would see this as a gerrymander and it would settle nothing. Hard Brexit is a significant minority in current polling. If we go the referendum way we have to be prepared to take full spectrum of outcomes on the chin.
Did you hear Esther McVey saying that with ‘no deal’ we get a transition? The people saying they support ‘no deal’ are not prepared to take the consequences.
I think in a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, Deal is likely to win. I know several Remainers who are uncomfortable with overturning the first referendum and who will vote Deal.
It may well do, although I'd be a bit cautious mapping what people say before the (hypothetical) campaign on to what they do after the campaign. If you're subject to a few weeks of hearing people making arguments you disagree with for Leave, and arguments you agree with for Remain, you're likely to forget about the procedural issue of whether the referendum should have happened and vote for the side you want to win.
I think the same applies to Leave supporters who are currently luke-warm on "deal". Give them a few weeks of the whole Leave campaign being on-message and nobody important saying "this is worse than no brexit" and nearly all of them will vote for their side.
I think Remain actually has a higher chance if No Deal is on the ballot as well (whether with AV or with 2 rounds) because Leave voters will be hearing a lot of stuff from their own side about how terrible one or the other Leave option is. Not that Remain-supporting MPs will want to take this gamble.
How ridiculous it will look if DEAL wins. An option overwhelmingly rejected by parliament will have to be implemented by parliament. Ditto in the case of NODEAL. If NODEAL is on the ballot then the referendum will not be possible until infrastructure has been put in to cope with it. We wouldn't wanr to be caught unwares a second time, would we?
For the above an other reasons I doubt that a referendum will actually happen.
It's a fair point, but if parliament won't countenance no deal, and doesn't have the spine to do what it clearly wants to do and just remain without a referendum, and if the EU are not bluffing about not renegotiating, what is the alternative? Something has to be up against remain if there is a vote, and since they don't seem likely to approve any deal, remain is what they want to happen.
Having lost the vote in parliament and given these numbers I can see Theresa May pushing for a referendum on her deal versus No Deal, which she would win. Will parliament allow her to do that?
Not much incentive for remainers to support that really. Or Corbyn.
A 3-way referendum would surely pass though.
The only referendum that could get through parliament is Deal/Remain.
Many would see this as a gerrymander and it would settle nothing. Hard Brexit is a significant minority in current polling. If we go the referendum way we have to be prepared to take full spectrum of outcomes on the chin.
Did you hear Esther McVey saying that with ‘no deal’ we get a transition? The people saying they support ‘no dral’ Are not prepared to take the consequences.
Take your typical commuter. Let's say they commute to London every day via Southern Rail. They have no other options - a car takes twice as long and parking is prohibitively expensive, and they work in a job that doesn't exist in the sticks, so they can't take a job closer to home. Nor can they move closer to work, because London property prices.
They have *no choice* other than to use Sothern Rail every day. So day in, day out, they pay through the nose for a service they find sub-optimal. Delays, no seats, rip off prices. All of this, just to work. And there is no alternative. No other choice. You pay what you're told and hope your job pays enough to make it work.
Corbyn comes along and says "I will nationalise this and run it for the benefit of the commuters, not the profiteering train operating companies."
Most people understand capitalism enough to understand that private companies operate at a profit. They see that profit as going to shareholders when, under a nationalised system, those profits would be poured back into either a) making the service better or b) lowering the cost of tickets.
Also, don't strikes already happen (Southern Rail being a prime example)? Most people figure they have nothing to lose from a policy of rail nationalisation, except the parasitic middle man who takes profit rather than pouring it back into the system.
Railways are natural monopolies and capitalism fails when there is no competition to drive down prices.
Your comment highlights a long-standing bugbear of mine: this odd obsession with passengers over freight. It's amazing how many proponents of nationalisation forget freight, and this is a sad indication that renationalisation will be a disaster.
And yes, strikes do happen, but they're not national strikes. Northern Rail were striking yesterday, which meant I couldn't do my planned walk in South Yorkshire. But I could do a work elsewhere and still use a train. With national strikes that isn't an option.
They're also over things like Driver Only Operation, which has been around for years and which, if scrapped, will cost a fortune.
You might also like to know that some of the operators don't actually make a profit, and still pay the taxpayer millions. In that way, the risk-reward system is working quite well ...
Having lost the vote in parliament and given these numbers I can see Theresa May pushing for a referendum on her deal versus No Deal, which she would win. Will parliament allow her to do that?
Not much incentive for remainers to support that really. Or Corbyn.
A 3-way referendum would surely pass though.
The only referendum that could get through parliament is Deal/Remain.
Many would see this as a gerrymander and it would settle nothing. Hard Brexit is a significant minority in current polling. If we go the referendum way we have to be prepared to take full spectrum of outcomes on the chin.
Did you hear Esther McVey saying that with ‘no deal’ we get a transition? The people saying they support ‘no dral’ Are not prepared to take the consequences.
Her as well? Davis was saying the same thing
Surely we'd have been told that ages ago if that was true. There've been that many stories about no plane landing rights and so on.
Having lost the vote in parliament and given these numbers I can see Theresa May pushing for a referendum on her deal versus No Deal, which she would win. Will parliament allow her to do that?
Not much incentive for remainers to support that really. Or Corbyn.
A 3-way referendum would surely pass though.
The only referendum that could get through parliament is Deal/Remain.
Many would see this as a gerrymander and it would settle nothing. Hard Brexit is a significant minority in current polling. If we go the referendum way we have to be prepared to take full spectrum of outcomes on the chin.
Did you hear Esther McVey saying that with ‘no deal’ we get a transition? The people saying they support ‘no dral’ Are not prepared to take the consequences.
Her as well? Davis was saying the same thing
Surely we'd have been told that ages ago if that was true. There've been that many stories about no plane landing rights and so on.
I thought the whole point of the WA was to agree a transition to talk about the things that would take longer to resolve. No WA, no transition. But then I have gotten very confused by all the various options lately.
Having lost the vote in parliament and given these numbers I can see Theresa May pushing for a referendum on her deal versus No Deal, which she would win. Will parliament allow her to do that?
Not much incentive for remainers to support that really. Or Corbyn.
A 3-way referendum would surely pass though.
The only referendum that could get through parliament is Deal/Remain.
Many would see this as a gerrymander and it would settle nothing. Hard Brexit is a significant minority in current polling. If we go the referendum way we have to be prepared to take full spectrum of outcomes on the chin.
Did you hear Esther McVey saying that with ‘no deal’ we get a transition? The people saying they support ‘no dral’ Are not prepared to take the consequences.
Her as well? Davis was saying the same thing
Surely we'd have been told that ages ago if that was true. There've been that many stories about no plane landing rights and so on.
I thought the whole point of the WA was to agree a transition to talk about the things that would take longer to resolve. No WA, no transition. But then I have gotten very confused by all the various options lately.
I think in a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, Deal is likely to win. I know several Remainers who are uncomfortable with overturning the first referendum and who will vote Deal.
It may well do, although I'd be a bit cautious mapping what people say before the (hypothetical) campaign on to what they do after the campaign. If you're subject to a few weeks of hearing people making arguments you disagree with for Leave, and arguments you agree with for Remain, you're likely to forget about the procedural issue of whether the referendum should have happened and vote for the side you want to win.
I think the same applies to Leave supporters who are currently luke-warm on "deal". Give them a few weeks of the whole Leave campaign being on-message and nobody important saying "this is worse than no brexit" and nearly all of them will vote for their side.
I think Remain actually has a higher chance if No Deal is on the ballot as well (whether with AV or with 2 rounds) because Leave voters will be hearing a lot of stuff from their own side about how terrible one or the other Leave option is. Not that Remain-supporting MPs will want to take this gamble.
How ridiculous it will look if DEAL wins. An option overwhelmingly rejected by parliament will have to be implemented by parliament. Ditto in the case of NODEAL. If NODEAL is on the ballot then the referendum will not be possible until infrastructure has been put in to cope with it. We wouldn't wanr to be caught unwares a second time, would we?
For the above an other reasons I doubt that a referendum will actually happen.
Deal and No Deal are the only Leave options short of complete SM and CU BINO available. Otherwise Remain which has already been rejected
Actually remain was not rejected. It was remain under Cameron’s deal which wasn’t and isn’t the same as remain under the present terms.
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
Why should I pay taxes to fund hospitals when I rarely use hospitals? Or elderly care? Or .... [substitute public service here]
Why should I be subsidising rail travel when they still fleece me for £300+ if I need to travel across the country even with a months notice....
We can all come up with lists of things we do not use, want or like. Salami-slicing what we want to pay for would be an admin nightmare and sometimes we wind up needing services we did not know we would need.
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
As I've said passim, I reckon Corbyn's Labour will:
*) do a deal with the unions - say no strikes for two years - in return for renationalisation (which the unions have wanted for years). That will get a quick win wrt the stupid strikes that are ongoing atm.
*) They will announce a fare freeze (they will claim paid for from what would have been the private profits). If companies are making 3% pa profit, then a 3% freeze could only be sustained for one year.
*) They will alter the user/general taxation payment balance, so users pay less and general taxation more.
*) Give more paths to passenger trains over freight trains, as freight trains just get in the way.
These are smoke and mirrors (and in the case of the fare freeze, disastrous, as we are seeing with Khan's wizard wheeze in London). But the short-term positives will be much more important for a Labour government than the long-term consequences.
Heck, it's what I'd do if I was advising them from a political angle and wasn't interested in the long-term interests of the railways and its users.
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
Why should I pay taxes to fund hospitals when I rarely use hospitals? Or elderly care? Or .... [substitute public service here]
Why should I be subsidising rail travel when they still fleece me for £300+ if I need to travel across the country even with a months notice....
We can all come up with lists of things we do not use, want or like. Salami-slicing what we want to pay for would be an admin nightmare and sometimes we wind up needing services we did not know we would need.
We pay into a common pot for a reason.
We also need to decide what is important. Not everything matters.
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
Why should I pay taxes to fund hospitals when I rarely use hospitals? Or elderly care? Or .... [substitute public service here]
Everyone uses the nhs throughout all stages of their life even if that is not in a hospital
The thing is, you do not always know what you will need, in advance of you needing it. I did not use railways for decades then, all of a sudden I needed them for 5 years and then I have rarely used them since.
Your comment highlights a long-standing bugbear of mine: this odd obsession with passengers over freight. It's amazing how many proponents of nationalisation forget freight, and this is a sad indication that renationalisation will be a disaster.
And yes, strikes do happen, but they're not national strikes. Northern Rail were striking yesterday, which meant I couldn't do my planned walk in South Yorkshire. But I could do a work elsewhere and still use a train. With national strikes that isn't an option.
They're also over things like Driver Only Operation, which has been around for years and which, if scrapped, will cost a fortune.
You might also like to know that some of the operators don't actually make a profit, and still pay the taxpayer millions. In that way, the risk-reward system is working quite well ...
I'm not disagreeing with you, the trouble is that freight doesn't vote. The guy who gets fleeced for £70 knowing a similar journey would cost £20 in his car does. Ditto the person who pays £4000 a year for an hour long standing room only train he's crammed into like a sardine in a can.
Nationalisation may not make sense from a technical or economic perspective when considered from a macro point of view. But from the perspective of the individual voters I have used in my examples, you can see why it's a popular policy among the electorate at large.
Ultimately it's totemic, it's Corbyn coming along and saying to people "nasty capitalists are ripping off you, the little guy, and I will use the power of the state to put a stop to it". To go back to what we were discussing much earlier in the thread, if you are one of the losers from a decade of austerity, one of Miliband's JAMS, someone who struggles to make ends meet and feels powerless, it's an absolute vote winner.
Corbyn is a populist, albeit not of the Trump variety. Nonetheless, that's his appeal.
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
Why should I pay taxes to fund hospitals when I rarely use hospitals? Or elderly care? Or .... [substitute public service here]
Why should I be subsidising rail travel when they still fleece me for £300+ if I need to travel across the country even with a months notice....
We can all come up with lists of things we do not use, want or like. Salami-slicing what we want to pay for would be an admin nightmare and sometimes we wind up needing services we did not know we would need.
We pay into a common pot for a reason.
We also need to decide what is important. Not everything matters.
True, but as well as currently spending money on things that don’t matter (maybe), there are also plenty of things that do matter that aren’t currently funded (for example some of the cuts to prison, probation, rehab and court services).
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.
Utter nonsense. Take Scotland - everyone is getting excited about the introduction of Mark 3 stock on the inter7city services. That would be the same Mark 3 stock that operated with the push-pull sets back in the 80s. Meanwhile in the north of England we still have to endure the rancid Pacers- except every Saturday when strike action means you have to catch a bus.
Even Thatcher realised that rail privatisation was one privatisation too far.
The reason the good people of Scotland are getting excited is that they're getting decent, comfortable Mark 3 carriages and HSTs, which are reliable and good. Whereas the southerners get the IEPs, which are fiscally disastrous and uncomfortable. And whose entry into services is being delayed on LNER for safety reasons, whilst the GWR are being forced to use them despite the same safety issues!
(Oh, and the IETs were specified and purchases at ludicrous cost by the DfT, not a ROSCO. Therefore it is exactly the sort of fuckwitted think a nationalised railway will do.)
You might also recognise that Pacers are used in the south as well as the north ...
The key takeaways are that Leavers can't abide the thought of staying in the EU and Remainers are appalled by the thought of No Deal. Very few people think May's Deal is good, but no-one hates it quite as much as another option. She's onto a winner.
These poll questions suggest the only clear referendum result would be on a May's deal versus no deal question, which would see May's Deal win handsomely. Which is presumably why she's keen to phrase the issue that way. A choice between May's Deal and Remain or between No Deal and Remain could go either way.
Leavers are pretty keen on No Deal. (They wouldn't like the reality, but reality has never been a consideration).
The key takeaways are that Leavers can't abide the thought of staying in the EU and Remainers are appalled by the thought of No Deal. Very few people think May's Deal is good, but no-one hates it quite as much as another option. She's onto a winner.
Regarding rail freight, this is the one part of the system where there is genuine competition. Fed up with DB? Give your contract to Freightliner or GBRF.
However, the industry too often loses sight of the real competition - road transport. All rail freight companies and society at large will benefit from a switch from road to rail. That should be the priority of the industry and encouraged by government policy.
I think in a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, Deal is likely to win. I know several Remainers who are uncomfortable with overturning the first referendum and who will vote Deal.
It may well do, although I'd be a bit cautious mapping what people say before the (hypothetical) campaign on to what they do after the campaign. If you're subject to a few weeks of hearing people making arguments you disagree with for Leave, and arguments you agree with for Remain, you're likely to forget about the procedural issue of whether the referendum should have happened and vote for the side you want to win.
I think the same applies to Leave supporters who are currently luke-warm on "deal". Give them a few weeks of the whole Leave campaign being on-message and nobody important saying "this is worse than no brexit" and nearly all of them will vote for their side.
I think Remain actually has a higher chance if No Deal is on the ballot as well (whether with AV or with 2 rounds) because Leave voters will be hearing a lot of stuff from their own side about how terrible one or the other Leave option is. Not that Remain-supporting MPs will want to take this gamble.
How ridiculous it will look if DEAL wins. An option overwhelmingly rejected by parliament will have to be implemented by parliament. Ditto in the case of NODEAL. If NODEAL is on the ballot then the referendum will not be possible until infrastructure has been put in to cope with it. We wouldn't wanr to be caught unwares a second time, would we?
For the above an other reasons I doubt that a referendum will actually happen.
Deal and No Deal are the only Leave options short of complete SM and CU BINO available. Otherwise Remain which has already been rejected
Actually remain was not rejected. It was remain under Cameron’s deal which wasn’t and isn’t the same as remain under the present terms.
Remain under present terms is virtually indistinguishable from Remain under Cameron's deal but addresses even less voter concerns
Incidentally, more The Outer Worlds information has emerged, and it sounds pretty positive. Small parties, the ability to be an utter dick and murder lots of people, base is the spaceship and the AI develops/evolves as you play.
Between the cesspit of Fallout 76's PR, Cyberpunk 2077 and The Outer Worlds, Bethesda may be feeling a shade nervous about when they release Starfield (pencilled in for 2021).
Having lost the vote in parliament and given these numbers I can see Theresa May pushing for a referendum on her deal versus No Deal, which she would win. Will parliament allow her to do that?
Not much incentive for remainers to support that really. Or Corbyn.
A 3-way referendum would surely pass though.
The only referendum that could get through parliament is Deal/Remain.
Many would see this as a gerrymander and it would settle nothing. Hard Brexit is a significant minority in current polling. If we go the referendum way we have to be prepared to take full spectrum of outcomes on the chin.
Did you hear Esther McVey saying that with ‘no deal’ we get a transition? The people saying they support ‘no dral’ Are not prepared to take the consequences.
Her as well? Davis was saying the same thing
Yep, that's not No deal. It's the Deal without the backstop.
Incidentally, more The Outer Worlds information has emerged, and it sounds pretty positive. Small parties, the ability to be an utter dick and murder lots of people, base is the spaceship and the AI develops/evolves as you play.
Between the cesspit of Fallout 76's PR, Cyberpunk 2077 and The Outer Worlds, Bethesda may be feeling a shade nervous about when they release Starfield (pencilled in for 2021).
Obsidian did make the best Fallout game of the modern era as well in Fallout New Vegas. Played it again this year, still hold up.
Incidentally I played the last 2 Dishonored games just this week and I have to say that series is very underrated, I hope there are more. Visually grabbing, and small but compact environments rather than a bit too much openness for no purpose.
The key takeaways are that Leavers can't abide the thought of staying in the EU and Remainers are appalled by the thought of No Deal. Very few people think May's Deal is good, but no-one hates it quite as much as another option. She's onto a winner.
Except where it matters - in Parliament.
Something has to turn up. Another option is to pause or cancel Article 50 while working out, with more or less seriousness an alternative Brexit to her deal.
There are only three immediate options: 1. Agree the deal as is. 2. Cancel (or maybe pause with EU agreement) A50 3. Crash out.
These options have implications for what happens next. 2 could be followed by a referendum. I don't think 3 is a stable state and 1, despite what May says, is blind Brexit.
Edit 2 may also require 1. It is an insurance policy for the EU
I think I've got the preferred framing of a second referendum question sussed:
Should the United Kingdom:
1. Remain in the EU on current terms. 2. Remain in the EU and join the Euro and Schengen area.
Curiously ading the Schengen option would balance the outcomes nicely.
No Deal Deal Remain Euro+Schengen.
Then you eliminate Remain (already rejected by the people) and Deal (after it is rejected by Parliament on Tuesday) and then you get a choice that can actually resolve the issue...
Regarding rail freight, this is the one part of the system where there is genuine competition. Fed up with DB? Give your contract to Freightliner or GBRF.
However, the industry too often loses sight of the real competition - road transport. All rail freight companies and society at large will benefit from a switch from road to rail. That should be the priority of the industry and encouraged by government policy.
But it won't be. As we see below, it's all about the passengers.
Besides, as you say, it's one of the areas where privatisation is working (*), so why would they want to perpetuate that?
We should also remember how safe the railways currently are: and that's something we should congratulate the network for, whether private operators or nationalised infrastructure.
(*) Volumes are decreasing, but that's more a result of the death of coal, which was the vast majority of freight traffic until the last few years. AFAIK non-coal freight is healthy.
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.
Utter nonsense. Take Scotland - everyone is getting excited about the introduction of Mark 3 stock on the inter7city services. That would be the same Mark 3 stock that operated with the push-pull sets back in the 80s. Meanwhile in the north of England we still have to endure the rancid Pacers- except every Saturday when strike action means you have to catch a bus.
Even Thatcher realised that rail privatisation was one privatisation too far.
The reason the good people of Scotland are getting excited is that they're getting decent, comfortable Mark 3 carriages and HSTs, which are reliable and good. Whereas the southerners get the IEPs, which are fiscally disastrous and uncomfortable. And whose entry into services is being delayed on LNER for safety reasons, whilst the GWR are being forced to use them despite the same safety issues!
(Oh, and the IETs were specified and purchases at ludicrous cost by the DfT, not a ROSCO. Therefore it is exactly the sort of fuckwitted think a nationalised railway will do.)
You might also recognise that Pacers are used in the south as well as the north ...
I think in a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, Deal is likely to win. I know several Remainers who are uncomfortable with overturning the first referendum and who will vote Deal.
It may well do, although I'd be a bit cautious mapping what people say before the (hypothetical) campaign on to what they do after the campaign. If you're subject to a few weeks of hearing people making arguments you disagree with for Leave, and arguments you agree with for Remain, you're likely to forget about the procedural issue of whether the referendum should have happened and vote for the side you want to win.
I think the same applies to Leave supporters who are currently luke-warm on "deal". Give them a few weeks of the whole Leave campaign being on-message and nobody important saying "this is worse than no brexit" and nearly all of them will vote for their side.
I think Remain actually has a higher chance if No Deal is on the ballot as well (whether with AV or with 2 rounds) because Leave voters will be hearing a lot of stuff from their own side about how terrible one or the other Leave option is. Not that Remain-supporting MPs will want to take this gamble.
How ridiculous it will look if DEAL wins. An option overwhelmingly rejected by parliament will have to be implemented by parliament. Ditto in the case of NODEAL. If NODEAL is on the ballot then the referendum will not be possible until infrastructure has been put in to cope with it. We wouldn't wanr to be caught unwares a second time, would we?
For the above an other reasons I doubt that a referendum will actually happen.
Deal and No Deal are the only Leave options short of complete SM and CU BINO available. Otherwise Remain which has already been rejected
Actually remain was not rejected. It was remain under Cameron’s deal which wasn’t and isn’t the same as remain under the present terms.
I think in a "Deal" versus "Remain" referendum, Deal is likely to win. I know several Remainers who are uncomfortable with overturning the first referendum and who will vote Deal.
It may well do, although I'd be a bit cautious mapping what people say before the (hypothetical) campaign on to what they do after the campaign. If you're subject to a few weeks of hearing people making arguments you disagree with for Leave, and arguments you agree with for Remain, you're likely to forget about the procedural issue of whether the referendum should have happened and vote for the side you want to win.
I think the same applies to Leave supporters who are currently luke-warm on "deal". Give them a few weeks of the whole Leave campaign being on-message and nobody important saying "this is worse than no brexit" and nearly all of them will vote for their side.
I think Remain actually has a higher chance if No Deal is on the ballot as well (whether with AV or with 2 rounds) because Leave voters will be hearing a lot of stuff from their own side about how terrible one or the other Leave option is. Not that Remain-supporting MPs will want to take this gamble.
How ridiculous it will look if DEAL wins. An option overwhelmingly rejected by parliament will have to be implemented by parliament. Ditto in the case of NODEAL. If NODEAL is on the ballot then the referendum will not be possible until infrastructure has been put in to cope with it. We wouldn't wanr to be caught unwares a second time, would we?
For the above an other reasons I doubt that a referendum will actually happen.
Deal and No Deal are the only Leave options short of complete SM and CU BINO available. Otherwise Remain which has already been rejected
Actually remain was not rejected. It was remain under Cameron’s deal which wasn’t and isn’t the same as remain under the present terms.
Remain under present terms is virtually indistinguishable from Remain under Cameron's deal but addresses even less voter concerns
It’s amazing that some think no deal will get on the ballot .
You can’t put a question like that in a referendum , it’s too subjective .
What happens if that gets voted through are the public instructing the government not to do deals in aviation and security , and not to ever agree a trade deal . It’s a complete nonsense to have no deal on the ballot .
Unfortunately the screaming no dealers haven’t stopped to think what no deal actually means and will just say betrayal when no deal isn’t on the ballot .
If you’re going to have a third option it has to be in a specific point , so you could ask leave without a withdrawal agreement and future framework . This won’t tie the governments hands and will allow further negotiation after Brexit .
I think I've got the preferred framing of a second referendum question sussed:
Should the United Kingdom:
1. Remain in the EU on current terms. 2. Remain in the EU and join the Euro and Schengen area.
Curiously ading the Schengen option would balance the outcomes nicely.
No Deal Deal Remain Euro+Schengen.
Then you eliminate Remain (already rejected by the people) and Deal (after it is rejected by Parliament on Tuesday) and then you get a choice that can actually resolve the issue...
Haha your mate Gerry Mander would certainly like that line of thinking!
Given that train companies profits average 4% of revenue, that would be a trickle rather than a pour.
Perhaps, but when a season ticket from Horsham to London stands at £4052 per annum, 4% is a decent chunk of change over the next five years.
A person paying £4k for a rail season ticket might be a "typical commuter" but they definitely aren't a typical voter.
Different example.
If I needed to get to Manchester from Newcastle tomorrow and back again it would cost me £70 each way for the privilege for the train ticket. It would take about two and a half hours.
That's a 144 mile journey which, according to Google maps, would take me about the same amount of time (it would also get me door-to-door). At 124p per litre, that journey would cost about £20-25 each way, depending on your MPG.
I know there are additional fixed costs in car ownership, but since outside central london most people drive anyway, can you not see how your average voter feels like every time they're buying a train ticket they're being ripped off?
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
Why should I pay more taxes to subsidise commuters when I rarely use the railways
Why should I pay taxes to fund hospitals when I rarely use hospitals? Or elderly care? Or .... [substitute public service here]
Everyone uses the nhs throughout all stages of their life even if that is not in a hospital
The thing is, you do not always know what you will need, in advance of you needing it. I did not use railways for decades then, all of a sudden I needed them for 5 years and then I have rarely used them since.
Life is not very predictable
About ten years ago, my dad used the railways for the first time since the 1960s. He did so reluctantly, and without high hopes. He was very surprised to have a positive experience: clean trains, punctual, and frequent (this was to get somewhere in Wales to pick up a car).
The key takeaways are that Leavers can't abide the thought of staying in the EU and Remainers are appalled by the thought of No Deal. Very few people think May's Deal is good, but no-one hates it quite as much as another option. She's onto a winner.
Except where it matters - in Parliament.
Something has to turn up. Another option is to pause or cancel Article 50 while working out, with more or less seriousness an alternative Brexit to her deal.
There are only three immediate options: 1. Agree the deal as is. 2. Cancel (or maybe pause with EU agreement) A50 3. Crash out.
These options have implications for what happens next. 2 could be followed by a referendum. I don't think 3 is a stable state and 1, despite what May says, is blind Brexit.
I don't think it's clear the EU side will agree to pausing the process just to faff around with no particular defined end-state. Maybe Corbyn could get away with it, I doubt TMay could.
Regarding rail freight, this is the one part of the system where there is genuine competition. Fed up with DB? Give your contract to Freightliner or GBRF.
However, the industry too often loses sight of the real competition - road transport. All rail freight companies and society at large will benefit from a switch from road to rail. That should be the priority of the industry and encouraged by government policy.
But it won't be. As we see below, it's all about the passengers.
Besides, as you say, it's one of the areas where privatisation is working (*), so why would they want to perpetuate that?
We should also remember how safe the railways currently are: and that's something we should congratulate the network for, whether private operators or nationalised infrastructure.
(*) Volumes are decreasing, but that's more a result of the death of coal, which was the vast majority of freight traffic until the last few years. AFAIK non-coal freight is healthy.
Safety is an interesting point.
Is too much money spent on squeezing an extra increment of safety?
If the same standards were applied on the roads we would all be banned from driving. How many SPADs do you get at traffic lights every day, for example?
On private schools, fees and numbers are a record highs. Removing the state subsidy much more likely to lead to some combination of parents choosing cheaper private options, paying a bit more, schools cutting costs, increasing class sizes etc.
I think the idea that all these schools would just give up and collapse is unrealistic.
Mr. kle4, played the first and liked it but haven't picked up the second Dishonored[sp] game. I agree they're underrated. Watched an interesting video a few years ago suggesting sequels were selling badly even when they were actually good (Dishonored 2 cited as an example).
Obsidian also made Pillars of Eternity which, loading screens aside, I rather enjoyed.
Was amused when Red Dead Redemption 2 made the BBC news. Kind of odd how superheroes and fantasy have crossed the divide from the nerdlands to the mainstream, but some still seem to pigeonhole videogames there.
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
As I've said passim, I reckon Corbyn's Labour will:
*) do a deal with the unions - say no strikes for two years - in return for renationalisation (which the unions have wanted for years). That will get a quick win wrt the stupid strikes that are ongoing atm.
*) They will announce a fare freeze (they will claim paid for from what would have been the private profits). If companies are making 3% pa profit, then a 3% freeze could only be sustained for one year.
*) They will alter the user/general taxation payment balance, so users pay less and general taxation more.
*) Give more paths to passenger trains over freight trains, as freight trains just get in the way.
These are smoke and mirrors (and in the case of the fare freeze, disastrous, as we are seeing with Khan's wizard wheeze in London). But the short-term positives will be much more important for a Labour government than the long-term consequences.
Heck, it's what I'd do if I was advising them from a political angle and wasn't interested in the long-term interests of the railways and its users.
You were obviously in nappies when it was last a nationalised system. It was crap , they were on strike all the time and service was pathetic on old clapped out stock.
Utter nonsense. Take Scotland - everyone is getting excited about the introduction of Mark 3 stock on the inter7city services. That would be the same Mark 3 stock that operated with the push-pull sets back in the 80s. Meanwhile in the north of England we still have to endure the rancid Pacers- except every Saturday when strike action means you have to catch a bus.
Even Thatcher realised that rail privatisation was one privatisation too far.
The reason the good people of Scotland are getting excited is that they're getting decent, comfortable Mark 3 carriages and HSTs, which are reliable and good. Whereas the southerners get the IEPs, which are fiscally disastrous and uncomfortable. And whose entry into services is being delayed on LNER for safety reasons, whilst the GWR are being forced to use them despite the same safety issues!
(Oh, and the IETs were specified and purchases at ludicrous cost by the DfT, not a ROSCO. Therefore it is exactly the sort of fuckwitted think a nationalised railway will do.)
You might also recognise that Pacers are used in the south as well as the north ...
So what you are saying is that the stock introduced by BR 40 years ago is superior to what the private sector is introducing today.
Passenger comfort appears to be totally unimportant these days.
BRING BACK MARK 1 STOCK WITH PROPER SPRUNG SEATS!!!
BR always did buy stock from private constructors - e.g. Metro-Cammell or the Romanian 56's. The problem with the IETs is that they were specified by the DfT (i.e. the government) rather than the private operators.
Those HST's are also very different beasts to the ones introduced forty years ago. Re-engined, and the coaches are being utterly refurbished (albeit sadly slowly).
If you'd seen the results of the Mark 1 coach over-run tests done 25 years ago at Rowsley, you'd be less keen on bringing back the Mark 1's ...
However, do you think nationalised railways would be cheaper and only take two and a half hours?
I don't think it would be faster or more efficent (although I do think it would be cheaper - if only in the sense that it would be subsidised through higher taxes so someone else would pay for it).
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
As I've said passim, I reckon Corbyn's Labour will:
*) do a deal with the unions - say no strikes for two years - in return for renationalisation (which the unions have wanted for years). That will get a quick win wrt the stupid strikes that are ongoing atm.
*) They will announce a fare freeze (they will claim paid for from what would have been the private profits). If companies are making 3% pa profit, then a 3% freeze could only be sustained for one year.
*) They will alter the user/general taxation payment balance, so users pay less and general taxation more.
*) Give more paths to passenger trains over freight trains, as freight trains just get in the way.
These are smoke and mirrors (and in the case of the fare freeze, disastrous, as we are seeing with Khan's wizard wheeze in London). But the short-term positives will be much more important for a Labour government than the long-term consequences.
Heck, it's what I'd do if I was advising them from a political angle and wasn't interested in the long-term interests of the railways and its users.
Comments
I'm not making the case for what I think, I'm making the case for what your average voter thinks and why rail nationalisation is one of Corbyn's more popular policies.
I think remain would win pretty comfortably, if they are smart and don't go on about the insanity of the first vote and how stupid people were.
If we do get another referendum it could be interesting for the markets. Of course, we await to see if we get one, and what the question is, and what the options are (and perhaps the voting method as well).
I think the same applies to Leave supporters who are currently luke-warm on "deal". Give them a few weeks of the whole Leave campaign being on-message and nobody important saying "this is worse than no brexit" and nearly all of them will vote for their side.
I think Remain actually has a higher chance if No Deal is on the ballot as well (whether with AV or with 2 rounds) because Leave voters will be hearing a lot of stuff from their own side about how terrible one or the other Leave option is. Not that Remain-supporting MPs will want to take this gamble.
I doubt we will ever get similar, more likely it would be badly managed , aggravated by unions and boom and bust on investment.
The fact is that in your best case scenario, *if* you are able to plan in advance, it's about the same price as getting in your car (especially if you have to factor getting a taxi to your final destination into the cost). Not a ringing endorsement. Especially not if you're travelling with a passenger...
Even Thatcher realised that rail privatisation was one privatisation too far.
The idea that closing the private schools simply results in all the rich kids and their pushy parents ending up at the local 'bog standard' comprehensive, is likely to be incorrect in practice. The funding per pupil in the state sector would also need to be maintained, and in some areas where schools are already full there will need to be capital expenditure on expanding the number of places.
For the above an other reasons I doubt that a referendum will actually happen.
That said you do still lose *some* voters who continue to believe the earlier version of reality and fail to download the updated firmware, and in a close race they could easily be enough to swing it.
Just like open-access train operators.
No Deal would be a shit-show, though. It would have all the same problems as Brexit, and then some: Does No Deal mean you can't make any kind of deal? What about something to keep the planes flying? How much of a deal is too much?
And yes, strikes do happen, but they're not national strikes. Northern Rail were striking yesterday, which meant I couldn't do my planned walk in South Yorkshire. But I could do a work elsewhere and still use a train. With national strikes that isn't an option.
They're also over things like Driver Only Operation, which has been around for years and which, if scrapped, will cost a fortune.
You might also like to know that some of the operators don't actually make a profit, and still pay the taxpayer millions. In that way, the risk-reward system is working quite well ...
Should the United Kingdom:
1. Remain in the EU on current terms.
2. Remain in the EU and join the Euro and Schengen area.
No Deal
Deal
Remain
Euro+Schengen.
Obviously there should be *four* options: those two plus remain, Euro only and remain, Schengen only. It’s important to give people a proper choice.
We pay into a common pot for a reason.
*) do a deal with the unions - say no strikes for two years - in return for renationalisation (which the unions have wanted for years). That will get a quick win wrt the stupid strikes that are ongoing atm.
*) They will announce a fare freeze (they will claim paid for from what would have been the private profits). If companies are making 3% pa profit, then a 3% freeze could only be sustained for one year.
*) They will alter the user/general taxation payment balance, so users pay less and general taxation more.
*) Give more paths to passenger trains over freight trains, as freight trains just get in the way.
These are smoke and mirrors (and in the case of the fare freeze, disastrous, as we are seeing with Khan's wizard wheeze in London). But the short-term positives will be much more important for a Labour government than the long-term consequences.
Heck, it's what I'd do if I was advising them from a political angle and wasn't interested in the long-term interests of the railways and its users.
Life is not very predictable
Nationalisation may not make sense from a technical or economic perspective when considered from a macro point of view. But from the perspective of the individual voters I have used in my examples, you can see why it's a popular policy among the electorate at large.
Ultimately it's totemic, it's Corbyn coming along and saying to people "nasty capitalists are ripping off you, the little guy, and I will use the power of the state to put a stop to it". To go back to what we were discussing much earlier in the thread, if you are one of the losers from a decade of austerity, one of Miliband's JAMS, someone who struggles to make ends meet and feels powerless, it's an absolute vote winner.
Corbyn is a populist, albeit not of the Trump variety. Nonetheless, that's his appeal.
(Oh, and the IETs were specified and purchases at ludicrous cost by the DfT, not a ROSCO. Therefore it is exactly the sort of fuckwitted think a nationalised railway will do.)
You might also recognise that Pacers are used in the south as well as the north ...
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/cover-story-azumas-on-hold-orr-suspends-approval-for-lner-ieps-yet-great-western-ieps-remain-in-use
Give us back our HSTs!
However, the industry too often loses sight of the real competition - road transport. All rail freight companies and society at large will benefit from a switch from road to rail. That should be the priority of the industry and encouraged by government policy.
Between the cesspit of Fallout 76's PR, Cyberpunk 2077 and The Outer Worlds, Bethesda may be feeling a shade nervous about when they release Starfield (pencilled in for 2021).
Incidentally I played the last 2 Dishonored games just this week and I have to say that series is very underrated, I hope there are more. Visually grabbing, and small but compact environments rather than a bit too much openness for no purpose.
There are only three immediate options:
1. Agree the deal as is.
2. Cancel (or maybe pause with EU agreement) A50
3. Crash out.
These options have implications for what happens next. 2 could be followed by a referendum. I don't think 3 is a stable state and 1, despite what May says, is blind Brexit.
Edit 2 may also require 1. It is an insurance policy for the EU
Besides, as you say, it's one of the areas where privatisation is working (*), so why would they want to perpetuate that?
We should also remember how safe the railways currently are: and that's something we should congratulate the network for, whether private operators or nationalised infrastructure.
(*) Volumes are decreasing, but that's more a result of the death of coal, which was the vast majority of freight traffic until the last few years. AFAIK non-coal freight is healthy.
Passenger comfort appears to be totally unimportant these days.
BRING BACK MARK 1 STOCK WITH PROPER SPRUNG SEATS!!!
You can’t put a question like that in a referendum , it’s too subjective .
What happens if that gets voted through are the public instructing the government not to do deals in aviation and security , and not to ever agree a trade deal . It’s a complete nonsense to have no deal on the ballot .
Unfortunately the screaming no dealers haven’t stopped to think what no deal actually means and will just say betrayal when no deal isn’t on the ballot .
If you’re going to have a third option it has to be in a specific point , so you could ask leave without a withdrawal agreement and future framework . This won’t tie the governments hands and will allow further negotiation after Brexit .
I don’t see how rail nationalisation will improve the lot of the South East commuter.
Here’s something that will.
Remove all second home allowances for all MPs within 60 miles of London.
Let the MPs suffer the same fate of standing on overcrowded trains as their commuting constituents.
You’ll find that will get something done quickly.
Things have improved.
Is too much money spent on squeezing an extra increment of safety?
If the same standards were applied on the roads we would all be banned from driving. How many SPADs do you get at traffic lights every day, for example?
I think the idea that all these schools would just give up and collapse is unrealistic.
Obsidian also made Pillars of Eternity which, loading screens aside, I rather enjoyed.
Was amused when Red Dead Redemption 2 made the BBC news. Kind of odd how superheroes and fantasy have crossed the divide from the nerdlands to the mainstream, but some still seem to pigeonhole videogames there.
Those HST's are also very different beasts to the ones introduced forty years ago. Re-engined, and the coaches are being utterly refurbished (albeit sadly slowly).
If you'd seen the results of the Mark 1 coach over-run tests done 25 years ago at Rowsley, you'd be less keen on bringing back the Mark 1's ...
https://londonist.com/london/transport/sadiq-announces-2019-fare-freeze-but-is-it-really-a-fare-freeze