the snap general election thread

gfplux

martinsurrey wrote: »

I do agree that it isn't anywhere near perfect, but record complaints in absolute terms means nothing if the number of passengers has doubled.

the South East is a bit of a mess currently, but that hopefully will be lessened with capacity upgrades and the end of the strikes about drivers opening doors.

I know this is wikipedia but it has everything in one place and you can follow to the sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Great_Britain

Since privatization satisfaction is up, complaints are down ( as a percentage of users), number of journeys has more than doubled and the public subsidy is under a 3rd of the closest rival country (France), and fallen per journey by over 50% since privitisation, so while our trains are expensive to buy tickets, the French tax payer contributes 3 times what the UK gov does, money coming from taxes DOESN'T mean the French system is cheaper.

Aren't You getting it just as wrong as Hilary Clinton and the remain campaign. You can argue all you like, you can quote any amount of statistics BUT if the people who travel on the trains and Buses, and drive on the roads ALL THINK they are bad and or very expensive then they are BAD and EXPENSIVE.

Yah_Boo_Sux

gfplux wrote: »

Aren't You getting it just as wrong as Hilary Clinton and the remain campaign. You can argue all you like, you can quote any amount of statistics BUT if the people who travel on the trains and Buses, and drive on the roads ALL THINK they are bad and or very expensive then they are BAD and EXPENSIVE.

What?
You're missing something very basic in your flawed argument and that is that NOT everybody thinks they are bad or expensive.
For railways for example 80% or more have expressed overall satisfaction since 2007.
These statistics are readily available.
So what makes you think they are so bad when 8 out of ten users here disagree with you?

StevieJ

Moby wrote: »

We were unelectable for 18 years....things change....events happen. .....Govmts become unpopular. I'm comforted by the end of UKIP.
Anyway apparently we won:-
http://newsthump.com/2017/05/05/labour-wins-huge-majority-in-local-elections-after-diane-abbott-counts-the-votes/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

The next election is going to depend on Brexit, if it all goes wrong the Tories will be blamed. It is not inconceivable though that 'Teflon May' will put the results of the negotiations to the people in a 2nd referendum and we won't actually leave, shock horror, democracy in action. Too many unknowns to write the Labour party off just yet, especially when that army of smokers realise that they have to pay full price for their ciggies and booze :-)

westernpromise

BobQ wrote: »

Today, Labour has lost some of its best and most credible leaders and those that do serve hardly inspire confidence. This makes its task even more difficult.

The problem is going to get worse because post GE they could be down to as few as 150 MPs. This will lead to two disastrous consequences. One, it won't require many nutters to nominate Corbyn Mark Two so there'll be a loony on the ballot for leader. Two, with as few MPs as that they'll be desperately short of actual talent. A fair few of those MPs wil be gormless nodding dogs picked according some sexist or racist quota rather than because they're any good. .

Some of their current policies are at least plausible but when presented by Diane Abbott or Jeremy Corbyn they are not being treated seriously. That is a big mountain to climb.

Anything advocated by Corbyn or Abbott is, almost by definition, stupid and irresponsible. If Jezzer said driving the wrong way up motorways at 100mph was a bad idea, I'd start to think it was a good idea. The real risk for Labour is that after apocalyptic defeat in June, they end up with another Corbyn as leader. The loonies aren't remotely apologetic for the shellacking that's looming. As far as they're concerned, they have lost two elections on a Blairite platform and the Labour vote's been declining since 1997, Blairite treachery is the problem and Jezzer hasn't had time to articulate his vision of socialism, which is what the people are yearning for and the Tory BBC won't let them hear it. So what's needed is more leftism not less.

That way disaster looms.

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

That's rich coming from a supporter of a party that kow tows to the Royal House of Saud that beheads gay people, supports Islamic State and is a tad anti semitic. It's called moral relativism! No one has clean hands......not even Saint Theresa!

How did Labour's attitude toward Saudi Arabia differ from the current government's? Er, it didn't; so if you think that's going to persuade people, think again.

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

Neither Abbott or McDonnell will ever be voted leader of the Labour Party. They will fall with Corbyn. Starmer, Cooper, Chukka, Jarvis, David Miliband may come back?

Which constituency association would adopt him as a candidate, would he then get elected, and if elected would Labour's hard-left membership vote for a Blairite? And if they did, can he win an election against the Tories who will bring up his past at every opportunity?

The next Labour PM is not in the HoC yet, and may even still be in primary school.

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

We were unelectable for 18 years....things change....events happen. .....Govmts become unpopular.

Governments become unpopular and still win. See 1992.

westernpromise

StevieJ wrote: »

The next election is going to depend on Brexit, if it all goes wrong the Tories will be blamed.

No they won't. The EU will be blamed and the Tories re-elected for trying, where Labour and the LibDems would have rolled over.

kabayiri

Labour have one clear and fundamental problem in my view.

Every major policy they seem to come up with involves a common theme : spending more money == bigger state.

If the borrowing channels dry up this presents you with a big problem unless you can raise tax signicantly.

Labour would have to operate an austerity plan at some point, and this is bound to upset their Union backers.

gfplux

martinsurrey wrote: »

I do agree that it isn't anywhere near perfect, but record complaints in absolute terms means nothing if the number of passengers has doubled.

the South East is a bit of a mess currently, but that hopefully will be lessened with capacity upgrades and the end of the strikes about drivers opening doors.

I know this is wikipedia but it has everything in one place and you can follow to the sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Great_Britain

Since privatization satisfaction is up, complaints are down ( as a percentage of users), number of journeys has more than doubled and the public subsidy is under a 3rd of the closest rival country (France), and fallen per journey by over 50% since privitisation, so while our trains are expensive to buy tickets, the French tax payer contributes 3 times what the UK gov does, money coming from taxes DOESN'T mean the French system is cheaper.

Sorry Martin I completely overlooked addressing your last paragraph about susidys.
My original question was "where does all the money go" so I fully except that FRANCE unlike Britain spend a lot of money subsidising their railways. This is very apparent in the price of the ticket and the new rolling stock and available seats if you travel on railways in France.
So if Britain does not spend that money on subsidies there should be more money for other things. Which comes back again to "where does all the money go.