Don't vote Tory

[Copperface]

30 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

You're too young to remember the railways when they were last nationalised aren't you.

Actually, no.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalised-east-coast-rail-line-returns-209m-to-taxpayers-8866157.html

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, phillyfaddle said:

Yes, I remember the "good old days" of British Rail. However, that would still be infinitely preferable to the current situation. Us Brits have the highest fares in Europe by far. 75% of UK rail is either foreign state-owned or state-backed, so the money we spend ends up subsidising the public services of Germany, France, Holland and now China, rather than being re-invested in improving our own transport infrastructure. That, my friend, is bonkers.

I'm in favour of nationalisation, but by itself it won't reduce fares, or do anything much at all. The system is running at capacity, and the system costs what it costs to run.

There's a few quid to be recouped from what the franchises would otherwise bank as profit, but in the scheme of things it's not particularly meaningful. It won't cause any meaningful fare cut, or noticeably improved services.

People often point at the 'state run' East coast line of recent times and say that ran at a cheaper cost than a franchise, and it did - but only because it wasn't making any investment spending as a stop-gap fill-in operator.

Like i say, i'm in favour of nationalisation, but i can see why politicians would generally be wary of it - because the public would have big expectations from that act, while delivering an improvement is going to be damned hard.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Copperface said:

Actually, no.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalised-east-coast-rail-line-returns-209m-to-taxpayers-8866157.html

bit of a myth that one. see above.

 

[waterfalls212434]

I had this argument with my old man, yes things were bad under the old system of nationalised rail but nothing has improved with priviatizon! the only fucking difference is we now have the same shit service but we have to pay stupid money to access it! and the companies involved are tottally motivated by profit and not answerable to anyone it seems esp under a tory government who will never ever hold big business to account when it screws people over! what a fucking great change eh???....and  if done right it can work right! look at nationalised rail systems in other European countries like Spain to see what can be accomplished! I hate this attitude `it didn't work once so itll never ever work` its bullshit,  its utterly defeatist 

Edited May 19, 2017 by waterfalls212434

[Mardy]

Fuckers. Absolute c**ts. Basically preventing me, my wife and any children we might have from returning to the UK. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-lest-theresa-may-immigration-foreign-spouses-threshold-a7742791.html

[stuartbert two hats]

4 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

I had this argument with my old man, yes things were bad under the old system of nationalised rail but nothing has improved with priviatizon! the only fucking difference is we now have the same shit service but we have to pay stupid money to access it! and the companies involved are tottally motivated by profit and not answerable to anyone it seems esp under a tory government who will never ever hold big business to account when it screws people over! what a fucking great change eh???....and  if done right it can work right! look at nationalised rail systems in other European countries like Spain to see what can be accomplished! I hate this attitude `it didn't work once so itll never ever work` its bullshit,  its utterly defeatist 

Plus, people seem to forget that years ago, we had trains that were made years ago. I mean, do you remember how shit cars were in the 80s? That winter dawn chorus of engines turning over trying to start?

Of course trains used to be shit, everything we made in the past was shit.

[phillyfaddle]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

the public would have big expectations from that act, while delivering an improvement is going to be damned hard.

Agree, they would. And it will be hard for sure - less so perhaps if phased in as franchises come to an end. But I think nationalisation is the right thing to do. For foreign governments (and offshored billionaires) to profit directly from a rail infrastructure built using our public money just feels wrong. I also don't think we can truly know how much money might be available for investment in the event of re-nationalisation, But if other governments can effectively subsidise the cost of rail for their citizens why can't we? Don't get me started on energy....LOL

[Guest]

3 hours ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Plus, people seem to forget that years ago, we had trains that were made years ago. I mean, do you remember how shit cars were in the 80s? That winter dawn chorus of engines turning over trying to start?

Of course trains used to be shit, everything we made in the past was shit.

The Flying Scotsman isn't shit.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Ommadawn

[stuartbert two hats]

4 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

The Flying Scotsman isn't shit.

Nor were Rolls Royce cars, but you get the point - engineering has advanced.

[plaskins]

Please don't vote tory

 

 

That is all. 

[Trout Mask Replica]

That's the way with privatisation, drag the service down, promise people it will be better sold off, then pay massive subsidy. Rail, utilities, and coming soon NHS and social care. 

Still, lucrative times for the insurance industry ahead. Selling policies to cover your social and health care costs, secured on your home equity. Another financial scandal in the making. 

Don't vote Tory. 

[___S_o_m_a__]

"And there is a standard technique of privatization, namely defund what you want to privatize. Like when Thatcher wanted to defund the railroads, first thing to do is defund them, then they don't work and people get angry and they want a change. You say okay, privatize them and then they get worse."

Noam Chomsky 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, phillyfaddle said:

But if other governments can effectively subsidise the cost of rail for their citizens why can't we?

The govt already subsidises rail, and by quite a chunk.

Meanwhile, it's not really govts that subsidise anything, it's taxpayers. It's not free money from the sky.

Govts only have extra money to spend if the public are prepared to give up some of what they have to transfer the resources towards that subsidy.

All that's needed now is to find enough people prepared to give up some of what they have so that the small proportion of people who use the railways regularly are getting a benefit at the expense of everyone else.

Sorry for pointing out the hard facts. Just because you or I might think that's a good idea doesn't get to mean everyone else does. 

[babyblade41]

I'm a tory voter and brexiteer , it's what will benefit my ideals the most although not all policies sit comfortably with me, but vote I must as to have the right to do so which is a privilege.

 

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to anyone who doesn't think the same as I do as my own daughter is completely opposite to my way of thinking.  We have many a debate about it.

 

Although we never resort to name calling , just a mutual respect for each of our points of view. 

[Rumblestripe]

Why do opponents of privatisation point at British Rail? Why not point at Deutsche Bundesbahn? It is a different model it is run as a private joint-stock company, with the Federal Republic of Germany being its single shareholder.

Oh and those "shit" old trains like Inter City 125s are still in service now (introduced in1976) not that bad really?

[uscore]

23 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

I'm a tory voter and brexiteer , it's what will benefit my ideals the most although not all policies sit comfortably with me, but vote I must as to have the right to do so which is a privilege.

 

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to anyone who doesn't think the same as I do as my own daughter is completely opposite to my way of thinking.  We have many a debate about it.

 

Although we never resort to name calling , just a mutual respect for each of our points of view. 

I think it's difficult not to get personal in politics. When you are 'on the ground' and working with, or living with, the people directly affected by Tory policies, it's hard not to get angry. When you see people with very little losing the small amount of support they had, and see the fear they have for the future, how do you not get angry?  Your anger starts with the politicians; when you hear them talk about "everyone sharing the load" but then see more cuts on the most vulnerable, and more tax breaks for people already well off, when you've seen 30 or more years of the failures of "trickle down" politics, eventually that anger goes past the politicians and also lands of the people who keep voting for them.  In the peak of anger you consider Tory voters are deliberately vindictive on the weakest members of society, but even when you calm down you can only downgrade that view to turning a blind eye to their problems. How can you not make it personal when you see people choosing to vote for a party that you think are ruining people's lives? 

[Crazyfool01]

• The increase in the number of people living on the street is a very obvious sign that things are not working in terms of the Government in this country ... have we reverted to being  a third world country ?

[russycarps]

13 hours ago, Mardy said:

Fuckers. Absolute c**ts. Basically preventing me, my wife and any children we might have from returning to the UK. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-lest-theresa-may-immigration-foreign-spouses-threshold-a7742791.html

Sorry to hear that mate. But this country is a cess pit. You're better off out of it.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

On a side note and not really that related (but I wanted to post it somewhere) An ex work colleague posted a screen shot on FB earlier on in the week of a txt they had received from their mobile provider advising them they had scrapped roaming fees in Europe. The accompanying comment from said ex colleague was "Who said leaving the EU was a bad thing #votedleave"

I pointed out to him that the irony of his post, and that the only reason the roaming charges are being scrapped is because of an EU ruling.

This is somebody who was actually privately educated, yet doesn't really have anya sort of grasp of why they voted leave.

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

• The increase in the number of people living on the street is a very obvious sign that things are not working in terms of the Government in this country ... have we reverted to being  a third world country ?

No - of course not.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, Rumblestripe said:

Why do opponents of privatisation point at British Rail? Why not point at Deutsche Bundesbahn? It is a different model it is run as a private joint-stock company, with the Federal Republic of Germany being its single shareholder.

which is the current structure of network rail, which is - apart from the wording used to describe it - no different to British Rail.

BR wasn't run as a branch of govt, it was run as a standalone company owned by govt, same as all the nationalised stuff is. Like all these things, they're only as good as the management, and what the management is able to do is restricted by the subsidies govt will give to make that thing better.

And when govt needs a few quid for something else, there's always the temptation to take money from (say) rail investment subsidies to fund that something else - and particularly if the something-else is fairly instant in its impact (the public always likes extra nice things) while the loss of investment doesn't give that immediate impact.

I'm a big supporter of nationalisation, but there's no point pretending there's any magic to it. It brings that thing under all the competing pressures govt is trying to manage - and with a greater chance of govt interference the closer to govt that thing becomes.

And the closer to govt the ownership/control gets, the more likely the govt is to have to put the liabilities on the govts books - which happened in the last decade or so, where any liabilities of Network Rail count as govt debt, while the liabilities to keep funding the franchises don't.

Hence the recent cutting of lots of rail track investments (cancellation/delay in electrification) while the franchises that run the trains remain untouched.

But all that ceases to mean much, when the public will be screaming "you own it, you sort it out" but not be particularly willing to hand over extra cash so govt can sort it ... which only means the govt who does it will collect unpopularity and not be lauded for the change.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, crazyfool1 said:

• The increase in the number of people living on the street is a very obvious sign that things are not working in terms of the Government in this country ... have we reverted to being  a third world country ?

Nope.

But we have opened the doors to Europe's unemployed, who've come to this country and caused too few houses for the numbers here.

You can of course say "the govt should build more houses", but no one ever wants to think about how that's REALLY about diverting your money that might now be spent on nice things for yourself into providing the resources for building those houses instead. In the main when people say "the govt should build more houses" what they're really wanting is magic - those new houses without any resources being diverted to create them.

Edited May 20, 2017 by eFestivals

[Mr.Tease]

14 hours ago, Mardy said:

Fuckers. Absolute c**ts. Basically preventing me, my wife and any children we might have from returning to the UK. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-lest-theresa-may-immigration-foreign-spouses-threshold-a7742791.html

It really is such a nasty move (as was May's initial legislation on this)- this obsession with 'immigrants coming here and taking money' leads to some nasty policies and decisions and really doesn't look into the humanity of it. My dad was from Egypt and when he was terminally ill and dying, the home office refused his two sisters a visa to visit him before he died. Just nastiness.

Edited May 20, 2017 by Mr.Tease

[babyblade41]

1 hour ago, uscore said:

I think it's difficult not to get personal in politics. When you are 'on the ground' and working with, or living with, the people directly affected by Tory policies, it's hard not to get angry. When you see people with very little losing the small amount of support they had, and see the fear they have for the future, how do you not get angry?  Your anger starts with the politicians; when you hear them talk about "everyone sharing the load" but then see more cuts on the most vulnerable, and more tax breaks for people already well off, when you've seen 30 or more years of the failures of "trickle down" politics, eventually that anger goes past the politicians and also lands of the people who keep voting for them.  In the peak of anger you consider Tory voters are deliberately vindictive on the weakest members of society, but even when you calm down you can only downgrade that view to turning a blind eye to their problems. How can you not make it personal when you see people choosing to vote for a party that you think are ruining people's lives? 

The problem is though and I think even the most staunch anti tory voter would agree that every government needs strong opposition , Labour realistically do not have this at present. 

I really understand where you are coming from as I know only too well the vulnerable people need the utmost help, my eldest daughter would be classed in that category, but Labour has spent far too long faffing with Corbyn and Abbott, certainly the latter should have been removed ages ago, she is an embarrassment to the party

[arcade fireman]

I hate the Tories and will be voting Labour almost certainly but I just find it difficult to generate as much anger at people voting Tory this time round.

We've pushed millions and millions of people towards the Tories by several hundred thousand people in Labour repeatedly electing a man who fulfils their own political desires but not giving a shit about what the electorate as a whole might want from a potential PM. That is almost always the path to electoral defeat. When people talk about electability, it's been dismissed as a myth, that there's no such thing as electability. That's some post truth rubbish right there.

I don't think Corbyn hates Britain at all, but I can totally see why people would get that impression from a man who spent so much time fraternising with Sinn Fein, making public statements in solidarity with the IRA and accepting 4 payments of 5 grand a time from Iranian TV. 

I don't think Corbyn's policies are hard left. He's trying to do too much too quickly and if he had become PM he'd have ended up disappointing a lot of people by not getting half of this stuff done, but they're social democratic policies. However I don't blame people for coming to that conclusion when he's someone who has repeatedly praised the likes of Castro and Chavez amongst various other positions and associations over the decades that would be considered more hard left in this country.

I don't think Corbyn's a particularly competent leader, he's poor in interviews, can't reach out to voters from across the aisle very well and has had several incidents (e.g. the train incident) which just highlight this further. But also I think this stuff is more relevant as leader of the Opposition, if you've become PM you've managed to cut through that and it's what you do that counts more - so it's not so relevant to my GE vote. But I don't blame millions of people deciding all these things might not translate into someone they want running their country.

Of course there's a litany of reasons why people shouldn't vote Tory. Far more reasons not to vote Tory than Labour in my eyes. I don't think Theresa May's government is that well liked, but for most people it's simply a case of better the devil you know.