The Politics Thread

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

ar that they spent the money well, though (when the ruling junta of the time weren't embezzling it, anyway), and I'm also sure not all of that was spent on rail infrastructure.

Not saying it was, but they could use it to address other things which could divert other money elsewhere.

 

If any country got that they could make major investment, not to mention how cheap they could also pick up the materials, I just don't want people making out the Korean railways propped up because the people and government thought it was so important they were prepared to do anything to get it, they could do it because they were funded to an incredible extent to make it a bastion of capitalism and show up the North, they won the lottery in the fall out of the wall.

[Barky]

Korea might not be the most relevant example, but the fact that we have the worst traffic congestion in the developed world is all the examples anyone should need. 

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Barky said:

Korea might not be the most relevant example, but the fact that we have the worst traffic congestion in the developed world is all the examples anyone should need. 

Maybe there are too many people in the country? Can't ignore that forever.

[Barky]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Maybe there are too many people in the country? Can't ignore that forever.

Our traffic congestion is worse than many countries with higher population density.

 

There's no getting away from the fact that our roads are becoming third world, I'm afraid.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Not saying it was, but they could use it to address other things which could divert other money elsewhere.

 

If any country got that they could make major investment, not to mention how cheap they could also pick up the materials, I just don't want people making out the Korean railways propped up because the people and government thought it was so important they were prepared to do anything to get it, they could do it because they were funded to an incredible extent to make it a bastion of capitalism and show up the North, they won the lottery in the fall out of the wall.

By being blown halfway to hell and back. Funny how these things turn out, isn't it?

 

Having lived there, I would say that investment or no the national cohesiveness of the Korean people to get things done on a national level far outstrips our own. That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of corner cutting and white collar crime caused by people looking for a quick buck though.

[Webbo]

2 hours ago, cityfanlee23 said:

 

We are relatively no better off today than we were around 1980,

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2016#median-household-disposable-income-1000-higher-than-pre-downturn-level

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, Barky said:

Our traffic congestion is worse than many countries with higher population density.

 

There's no getting away from the fact that our roads are becoming third world, I'm afraid.

Can you name some for comparison?

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2016#median-household-disposable-income-1000-higher-than-pre-downturn-level

 

 

Thanks for those graphs, Webbo.

 

Even allowing for the 2008 crash, the growth in median and mean household incomes was excellent between 1997 and 2010, wasn't it?

 

Shame things have stagnated so badly since 2010. Just shows that you can't trust the Tories with the economy, eh? 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Thanks for those graphs, Webbo.

 

Even allowing for the 2008 crash, the growth in median and mean household incomes was excellent between 1997 and 2010, wasn't it?

 

Shame things have stagnated so badly since 2010. Just shows that you can't trust the Tories with the economy, eh? 

Look at that growth under Mrs Thatcher. Makes you proud to be British. 

[Innovindil]

Quote

Theresa May used a "well-established mechanism" in setting up a blind trust to manage her financial interests on becoming PM, Downing Street has said.

Under the arrangement, ministers avoid conflicts of interest with government work, but do not have to reveal their investments in full.

Labour and the Lib Dems said the public had a "legitimate interest" in knowing what companies Mrs May had shares in.

But Number 10 said the trust reflected the PM taking on "wider duties".

Mrs May set up the arrangement when she became prime minister last summer, after serving in the cabinet for six years as home secretary.

'Not involved'

The arrangement was revealed in the Cabinet Office list of ministers' interestspublished last month.

In placing shares in blind trusts, ministers have no knowledge of how their investment is being handled, to avoid any potential conflict of interest. It also means they do not have to reveal their investments in full in the list of ministerial interests.

Six other ministers hold shares managed by blind trusts. They are: Solicitor General Robert Buckland; business minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe; defence minister Earl Howe; education minister Lord Nash; health minister Philip Dunne; and Advocate General for Scotland Lord Keen of Elie.

A Number 10 spokeswoman said: "Blind trusts are a well-established mechanism for protecting ministers in the handling of their interests, as they are not involved in any decisions on the management, acquisition or disposal of items in the trust. She set it up when she became prime minister."

The spokeswoman said Mrs May had not needed a blind trust while home secretary, but now had a "far wider set of public duties".

'Full and proper transparency'

But Labour shadow cabinet minister Andrew Gwynne has called on Mrs May to disclose what she had put into the blind trust in the interests of transparency.

Mr Gwynne said if Mrs May had "nothing to hide", she needed to reveal her "existing financial interests".

"In not being able to scrutinise the prime minister's financial affairs it's not possible to know if they present a conflict of interest with her government responsibilities," Mr Gwynne added.

"The British people deserve full and proper transparency so they can make their own minds up on whether their politicians are acting in the nation's interest, rather than their own."

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron echoed this sentiment.

He said: "I'm sure the prime minister has nothing to hide but the public has a legitimate interest in what companies she invested in and who runs the trust.

"Theresa May promised the most transparent government in the world. This is an early test to see if her deeds match her words."

So May puts her money into a blind trust, so she has no idea what she's currently invested in and these wombles want her to disclose what she's invested in, even though she doesn't know herself?

 

Honestly, wtf are these ministers doing all day that they have time for such nonsense?

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, Innovindil said:

So May puts her money into a blind trust, so she has no idea what she's currently invested in and these wombles want her to disclose what she's invested in, even though she doesn't know herself?

 

Honestly, wtf are these ministers doing all day that they have time for such nonsense?

They know all that, they're just trying to smear by implication.

[Guest MattP]

I'm still chuckling at the Corbyn re-launch yesterday, I don't think we'll ever see a day of such rank incomptence at the top of poltics again. January is usually the most miserable month of the year, if he does this until 2020 he'll certainly liven it up for a few people. Anyone watch Newsnight? Shami Chakrabati actually sat there with a straight face and claimed it went well.

 

The sad part about it is we'll probably end up with May knowing she can force through laws like the horrific section 40, safe in the knowledge that come the next election we have to vote for her whatever, him and his supporters are as culpable for what happens as anyone.

 

I think next time around it's in everyone's interest whether right, centre left or centre to sign up to the Labour party and get rid of him, then he and his cult can set up there own political party and go from there.

[Nick]

33 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

 

The sad part about it is we'll probably end up with May knowing she can force through laws like the horrific section 40, safe in the knowledge that come the next election we have to vote for her whatever, him and his supporters are as culpable for what happens as anyone.

 

I enjoyed reading this (somewhat explanatory) piece yesterday in regard to section 40:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/10/the-guardian-view-on-section-40-muzzling-journalism

[Alf Bentley]

 

Another article about opposition to Section 40 by Private Eye and the FT: https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2017/jan/11/why-private-eye-and-the-ft-are-right-to-oppose-section-40

[Nick]

20 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Why are rail prices in this country shocking?  Why should those of us who pay for a car to drive to work subsidise the commute by train of those who dont have to have a car to get to work?  They should be higher.

 

"Oh my god it costs me £3000 a year to get to work in London!"

 

Takes out phone, opens calculator: cost of running a half decent car for a year, call it 30p a mile, average mileage 10k, OH MY god it costs me £3000 a year to get to work!

 

Before someone tells me the operating companies make a fortune, they earn approximately 3.5% margin on average, as they pay back to the government excess profit.

 

£3000 - its not 1986 anymore Jon.

 

I'm also not telling you operating companies make a fortune although 3.5% of the kind of figures we are talking about here is not small change.

 

The excess profit paid back to the government - is that money ring-fenced to be spent sole on rail upkeep and development?

 

I'm interested in debating our approaches to rail. I'm not asking for your tax to be spent subsidising travel for the poor Jon - heaven forbid.

 

I'm saying that rail is too expensive yes - perhaps not for me and you but certainly for others. I'm travelling next week to London and back for a meeting and I'm paying £12 which is ridiculous but I can pick and choose my meeting time and travel during off peak times and take up the offers - good for me. If I need to go tomorrow from Leicester at 7am to be in London for the day my ticket purchased today will cost £152.50 and what I do have an issue with is that rail travel price is not affordable for the average Joe.

 

An individual I know can get work in Derby and sometimes Notts and lives in the city centre of Leics - there's no parking where he lives and he can't afford a car. He works in factories and stuff but can get an anytime return for £12.50 to Notts and £13.50 to Derby - which is the first hour and a bit of his wages but does make it worth while going and doing the job for a week or two. So - if it's say 30 miles to Notts, and 25 miles to Derby I would expect to pay four times that fare to get to London - say £50 quid? Which is a proportionately reasonable price right? But because its London, it's not an accessible market place for those who don't earn say 30K plus and that's what I think is wrong.

 

You are a well travelled fella, other places/countries do it better. If I fly to Schipol tomorrow (for cheaper than it costs to go to London on the train) land, and board a train from the airport which takes me to the Hague and then on to a meeting in Rotterdam bringing me back to the airport in Peak time for my flight home which is 50 odd miles each way for less than 25 euros. The trains are double deckers, fast, comfortable, accessible and affordable. As a result you get lots of people using the train, less pollution and arguably a more competitive market for business as people can pitch, bid and quote for business that without the train travel would not necessarily be able to afford to do so. 

 

I just think there's a better way of doing rail and making it affordable and accessible - the girl that cut my hair yesterday informed me that she was excited because she had been saving up for a while and is going to London this weekend and 'staying over' she has planned and saved for this experience meticulously... I asked her why she was so excited after she told me about all the things she wanted to do and see... she replied "Well I've never been and I've always wanted to go - I've genuinely dreamt about it and have pictures in my house of a couple of the places I'd like to visit" Which about broke my heart because she is 21 years old. I dropped a tenner tip and told her to buy herself a drink in London and she looked at the note like I'd just handed her a fifty. I just find it staggering that she's never even been on a school trip to a museum and she described the capital as some far away place in a far away land..... I'd genuinely like to send her on the first class virgin train but that'd be £200 quid and it'd feel awkward! (No puns please.) 

 

Whilst the last paragraph is admittedly an indulgent rant, there's some links there for me about accessibility and aspirations..... I just feel that we are in danger of becoming out of touch with ordinary folk, ordinary folk who don't earn £25K a year, don't live in London and some who have never been at all. Rail should be for everybody every day.

 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Word of praise for Corbyn, he won PMQ's today quite comfortably, was an open goal with the NHS disaster, but he still won.

[Nick]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Word of praise for Corbyn, he won PMQ's today quite comfortably, was an open goal with the NHS disaster, but he still won.

Well that's very fair and balanced of you to remark on that Matt but in all fairness 50% of the people that post in this thread could have won PM's questions today and numerous other Wednesdays too recently!

[Darkon84]

Amber Rudd's speech at last years Conservative Party conference reported as 'hate speech'  

 

Absolute madness. No wonder the complaint came from a University, considering how they're all going at the moment with bloody safe spaces and complete intolerance whilst claiming to be tolerance.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38597714

 

Quote

West Midlands Police has said the home secretary's speech to last year's Conservative Party conference is being treated as a "hate incident".

In the speech, Amber Rudd suggested tightening rules that allow UK firms to recruit workers from overseas.

An Oxford University professor complained to the force claiming Ms Rudd was using "hate speech" to foster support for her political aims.

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

Amber Rudd is a complete disaster. I'd tell anyone to not critisize her in any other way instead of questioning her competence because it just overshadows how useless she is. I havnt heard anything from her for months so Tories must be hiding her away in agreement. She's also fvck ugly can't bear to look at her tbqh

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

Amber Rudd's speech at last years Conservative Party conference reported as 'hate speech'  

 

Absolute madness. No wonder the complaint came from a University, considering how they're all going at the moment with bloody safe spaces and complete intolerance whilst claiming to be tolerance.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38597714

When you read stuff like this you can see why "hate crime" is supposedly flying up, we've had stealing bikes, wolf whistling and now speeches on immigration classed as it.

 

The snowflakes will be calling the police if they see someone buying white chocolate in the newsagents.

 

4 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Amber Rudd is a complete disaster. I'd tell anyone to not critisize her in any other way instead of questioning her competence because it just overshadows how useless she is. I havnt heard anything from her for months so Tories must be hiding her away in agreement. She's also fvck ugly can't bear to look at her tbqh

She's terrible, why she got a promotion I have no idea, I can only assume they wanted 2 of the 4 great offices filled by women, still, at least she's not Diane Abbott I suppose.

 

Sooner Priti Patel gets the job the better, she's already doing a terrific job cleaning up the foreign aid mess and we finally seem to be getting some transparancy about how much money has been wasted ie £5million on the Ethopian Spice Girls.

[Sharpe's Fox]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

She's terrible, why she got a promotion I have no idea, I can only assume they wanted 2 of the 4 great offices filled by women, still, at least she's not Diane Abbott I suppose.

 

Sooner Priti Patel gets the job the better, she's already doing a terrific job cleaning up the foreign aid mess and we finally seem to be getting some transparancy about how much money has been wasted ie £5million on the Ethopian Spice Girls.

Has there been an exchange across the dispatch box between them yet? I would love to see that. Whats the opposite of two intellectual heavyweights clashing? Two drunk tramps fighting over a wheel of cheese? Rudd v Abbott is lower down than that.

 

Also Priti Patel is dece to look at.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Has there been an exchange across the dispatch box between them yet. I would love to see that. Whats the opposite of two intellectual heavyweights clashing? Two drunk tramps fighting over a wheel of cheese? Rudd v Abbott is lower down than that.

 

Also Priti Patel is dece to look at.

Not that I've seen, god I didn't even think about it, what a total mess.

[SpacedX]

23 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

£3000 - its not 1986 anymore Jon.

 

I'm also not telling you operating companies make a fortune although 3.5% of the kind of figures we are talking about here is not small change.

 

The excess profit paid back to the government - is that money ring-fenced to be spent sole on rail upkeep and development?

 

I'm interested in debating our approaches to rail. I'm not asking for your tax to be spent subsidising travel for the poor Jon - heaven forbid.

 

I'm saying that rail is too expensive yes - perhaps not for me and you but certainly for others. I'm travelling next week to London and back for a meeting and I'm paying £12 which is ridiculous but I can pick and choose my meeting time and travel during off peak times and take up the offers - good for me. If I need to go tomorrow from Leicester at 7am to be in London for the day my ticket purchased today will cost £152.50 and what I do have an issue with is that rail travel price is not affordable for the average Joe.

 

An individual I know can get work in Derby and sometimes Notts and lives in the city centre of Leics - there's no parking where he lives and he can't afford a car. He works in factories and stuff but can get an anytime return for £12.50 to Notts and £13.50 to Derby - which is the first hour and a bit of his wages but does make it worth while going and doing the job for a week or two. So - if it's say 30 miles to Notts, and 25 miles to Derby I would expect to pay four times that fare to get to London - say £50 quid? Which is a proportionately reasonable price right? But because its London, it's not an accessible market place for those who don't earn say 30K plus and that's what I think is wrong.

 

You are a well travelled fella, other places/countries do it better. If I fly to Schipol tomorrow (for cheaper than it costs to go to London on the train) land, and board a train from the airport which takes me to the Hague and then on to a meeting in Rotterdam bringing me back to the airport in Peak time for my flight home which is 50 odd miles each way for less than 25 euros. The trains are double deckers, fast, comfortable, accessible and affordable. As a result you get lots of people using the train, less pollution and arguably a more competitive market for business as people can pitch, bid and quote for business that without the train travel would not necessarily be able to afford to do so. 

 

I just think there's a better way of doing rail and making it affordable and accessible - the girl that cut my hair yesterday informed me that she was excited because she had been saving up for a while and is going to London this weekend and 'staying over' she has planned and saved for this experience meticulously... I asked her why she was so excited after she told me about all the things she wanted to do and see... she replied "Well I've never been and I've always wanted to go - I've genuinely dreamt about it and have pictures in my house of a couple of the places I'd like to visit" Which about broke my heart because she is 21 years old. I dropped a tenner tip and told her to buy herself a drink in London and she looked at the note like I'd just handed her a fifty. I just find it staggering that she's never even been on a school trip to a museum and she described the capital as some far away place in a far away land..... I'd genuinely like to send her on the first class virgin train but that'd be £200 quid and it'd feel awkward! (No puns please.) 

 

Whilst the last paragraph is admittedly an indulgent rant, there's some links there for me about accessibility and aspirations..... I just feel that we are in danger of becoming out of touch with ordinary folk, ordinary folk who don't earn £25K a year, don't live in London and some who have never been at all. Rail should be for everybody every day.

 

 

 

Excellent post.

 

The notion of privatisation involves the relentless and remorseless pursuit of profit but in an idealised sense, it is also instituted with the intention of engendering competition and supposedly assure enhanced quality and efficiency all in the interest of the consumer. The rail network is a farce whereby vast tracts of the network have been tendered out to monopolised interests which are neither adequately coordinated or operationally acceptable. Whilst in many cases the rift between union and franchise continues to grow, the commuter is the ultimate victim. Since privatisation rail fares have risen by 25% on average with some walk on tarrifs on selected routes disproportionately hiked by 245%. Despite this, the funding model of privatised rail is complete fiction. The costs of running a public rail network is not covered by the fares alone - so the government subsidises the operating companies which is not sustainable. also, when it comes to 'subsidies' what goes in one end often comes straight out of the other. I read that on the West Coast Mainline - which is considerably cheaper than East Midlands trains, since the start of the millennia Virgin Trains paid out a total of £500m in dividends having received £25m in subsidies. The sustainable alternative is to reunify the system, standardise the fares - as each franchise expires return it to the public.

 

'Revolting' on BBC2 is the best satire I've seen on TV since Brass Eye or Monkey Dust. It savages Southern Rail and brilliantly lampoons the usual obligatory clowns lining up in the Public Services private bidding processes such as G4s.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Darkon84 said:

Amber Rudd's speech at last years Conservative Party conference reported as 'hate speech'  

 

Absolute madness. No wonder the complaint came from a University, considering how they're all going at the moment with bloody safe spaces and complete intolerance whilst claiming to be tolerance.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38597714

The guy who reported it was on the Daily Politics an hour ago, absolutely hilarious trying to hear him defend it, he ended up admitting he hadn't even heard the speech and then went onto claim that Theresa May was going to expel all foreign doctors.

 

Actually a professor at Oxford as well

 

 

[Darkon84]

24 minutes ago, MattP said:

The guy who reported it was on the Daily Politics an hour ago, absolutely hilarious trying to hear him defend it, he ended up admitting he hadn't even heard the speech and then went onto claim that Theresa May was going to expel all foreign doctors.

 

Actually a professor at Oxford as well

 

 

 

Good God, what an absolute train wreck. If you're going to make outrageous claims about hate speech, and then agree to go on national television, you should damn well be able to explain yourself, not sit there, looking like a chubby JC, mumbling on about absolutely nothing, especially when you've not even seen the speech and only read a DRAFT of it. As usual, with these soft, offense-taking types, he's shot down by facts. I'd hope such a respected establishment as Oxford would be ashamed and take him to one side, but given how Universities are now, they'll probably give him a raise and a plaque!