Labour election results 'catastrophic'

[smudger]

She was faced with Labour, Lib Dems and SNP, plus any other assorted minorities, colluding to wreck the Brexit negotiations and votes, all documented.

She absolutely did the right thing.

Private party politics are not what is needed during the Brexit negotiations.

[Royal]

I agree that the official opposition are unpopular, weak and ineffective but that is mainly because it is led by one man - Jeremy Corbyn. A vote for him is a vote for unilateral nuclear disarmament, pulling the UK out of NATO, re-nationalisation of the railways and public utilities, the return of the power of the Trades Unions and higher taxes to pay for all the socialist promises he has made.

Looks like I had an advance copy of the Labour Manifesto!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39877439

[cyprusgrump]

I agree that the official opposition are unpopular, weak and ineffective but that is mainly because it is led by one man - Jeremy Corbyn. A vote for him is a vote for unilateral nuclear disarmament, pulling the UK out of NATO, re-nationalisation of the railways and public utilities, the return of the power of the Trades Unions and higher taxes to pay for all the socialist promises he has made.

Looks like I had an advance copy of the Labour Manifesto!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39877439

The World's longest suicide note...?

[Poppy]

We were watching the Dimbleby debate that was in Scotland last night. I was most impressed by a young guy (27) who had voted for Brexit. He said he was not a european but an internationalist and welcomed the positivity of the UK being free to deal with all nations. He was appalled that we had just abandoned trade with some countries purely due to EU restrictions and said he was enthusiastic about the opportunities that would be open to us. A great positive talk!

[cyprusgrump]

I was reminded of this on another forum earlier...

I don't like Labour, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like Labour, denigrate means 'put down'.

[Dominic]

A vote for him is a vote for unilateral nuclear disarmament, pulling the UK out of NATO, re-nationalisation of the railways and public utilities, the return of the power of the Trades Unions and higher taxes to pay for all the socialist promises he has made.

Renationalisation of the railways wouldn't be a bad thing. When they have had to renationalise parts of it in the recent past they've done well.

[Royal]

I have no strong views about that particular subject, never having been a rail commuter.

However, I am generally against nationalisation as it leads workers (and more importantly, the unions which represent them) to hold governments to ransom over excessive wage demands and restrictive practices (amongst other things). You only need look at the stupidity of the 70s for evidence.

An industry which doesn't have real competition and incentives tends to either die of natural causes or be propped up by the taxpayer. I am generally against the latter. Our governments are there to govern, not to run businesses...

[cyprusgrump]

I have no strong views about that particular subject, never having been a rail commuter.

However, I am generally against nationalisation as it leads workers (and more importantly, the unions which represent them) to hold governments to ransom over excessive wage demands and restrictive practices (amongst other things). You only need look at the stupidity of the 70s for evidence.

An industry which doesn't have real competition and incentives tends to either die of natural causes or be propped up by the taxpayer. I am generally against the latter. Our governments are there to govern, not to run businesses...

Agreed.

The roads are nationalised and look at the state of them.

[josef k]

The following are nationalised (i.e. UK government owned). Many have competition, offer good service, and I don't recall them holding government to ransom.

BBC
Behavioural Insights Team
Bradford & Bingley
British Business Bank
CDC Group
Community Health Partnerships
Companies House
Crown Estate
Direct Rail Services
Directly Operated Railways
Highways England
Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom)
International Nuclear Services
Lloyds Banking Group
London and Continental Railways
Met Office
National Nuclear Laboratory
National Savings and Investments
NATS Holdings
Network Rail
NHS Property Services
NHS Shared Business Services
Ordnance Survey
Post Office Ltd
Post Office Money
Royal Bank of Scotland Group
Royal Mint
Student Loans Company
UK Asset Resolution
UK Financial Investments
UK Green Investment Bank

Nationalisation isn't a bad thing in itself. It can be the right thing for the country for a particular company or industry to be nationalised. It's a shame people can't keep party politics out of it.

[Pete G]

OK so from your list, cross off

All those institutions servicing government obligations
All those required for taxation and licencing
Any that is owned but not effectively operated by the government with wholly independent fiscal arrangements

All you are left with is a set of object lessons in how to take a perfectly simple proposition and screw it up beyond redemption

[cyprusgrump]

OK so from your list, cross off

All those institutions servicing government obligations
All those required for taxation and licencing
Any that is owned but not effectively operated by the government with wholly independent fiscal arrangements

All you are left with is a set of object lessons in how to take a perfectly simple proposition and screw it up beyond redemption

[Cogs123]

In its five years as East Coast, the State run firm returned a little more than £1Billion in premiums as well as several million in profits to the Treasury. It was a veritable cash cow.
Detailed financial analysis from the Office of Rail Regulation, shows it was one of two firms to make a net contribution to Government coffers during that period. Paying in more than it received in subsidy or indirect grants.
Public ownership has routinely been caricatured as a wasteful, subsidy-guzzling failure.
So why sell it???.
Because its very existence & success rejected the dogma of ' the market is better '
It also depended on less public subsidies than any of the 15 privately run Rail Franchises.

[Jimgward]

I was reminded of this on another forum earlier...

I don't like Labour, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like Labour, denigrate means 'put down'.

You have a bloody cheek to call me out earlier, for being slightly abusive towards you,,, when you denigrate all labour voters, then I wouldn't expect otherwise, from such a right-wing denigrate

[cyprusgrump]

I was reminded of this on another forum earlier...

I don't like Labour, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like Labour, denigrate means 'put down'.

You have a bloody cheek to call me out earlier, for being slightly abusive towards you,,, when you denigrate all labour voters, then I wouldn't expect otherwise, from such a right-wing denigrate

[Pete G]

In its five years as East Coast, the State run firm returned a little more than £1Billion in premiums as well as several million in profits to the Treasury. It was a veritable cash cow.
Detailed financial analysis from the Office of Rail Regulation, shows it was one of two firms to make a net contribution to Government coffers during that period. Paying in more than it received in subsidy or indirect grants.
Public ownership has routinely been caricatured as a wasteful, subsidy-guzzling failure.
So why sell it???.
Because its very existence & success rejected the dogma of ' the market is better '
It also depended on less public subsidies than any of the 15 privately run Rail Franchises.

All true, of course. Except then it was replaced by Virgin East Coast, who immediately replaced the engines and rolling stock [which had not been upgraded at all during east coast's tenure] to improve the customers experience, dropped prices [dramatically in the case of off-peak], made paid for services by East Coast Free [like WiFi], and broke the cosy deal East Coast had with Network Rail to cover up bad engineering work practices .... oh and increased customer numbers. And that doesn't include, of course, all the improvements they made in station facilities, ticketing and information processes, and the 1001 other things ignored by East Coast, because Virgin's customer was the train user, not the Government.

Your use of the word 'profit' sums it up really. Basically East Coast were using taxpayer money to provide a service, at no risk to the 'company' itself, to provide a non-customer focussed service, based on dunning as much money out of people who had no option but to use their service, so the government would have even more of other peoples money to be inefficient with.

In other words, any 'profit' made by East Coast was actually money overpaid by commuters to use a service they already owned, on the basis that the Government knew they had no other choice, and had no incentive to re-invest to improve service.

A tax, in other words, and I seem to recall when I lived in the UK, I thought I was paying enough of that anyway, without being overcharged to sit in old rolling stock, by a company who could care less [but not a lot] about what my experience or comfort was.

'The market is better' is not dogma. It is, especially in the case of East Coast, a demonstrable fact

[Dominic]

All true, of course. Except then it was replaced by Virgin East Coast, who immediately replaced the engines and rolling stock [which had not been upgraded at all during east coast's tenure] to improve the customers experience, dropped prices [dramatically in the case of off-peak], made paid for services by East Coast Free [like WiFi], and broke the cosy deal East Coast had with Network Rail to cover up bad engineering work practices .... oh and increased customer numbers. And that doesn't include, of course, all the improvements they made in station facilities, ticketing and information processes, and the 1001 other things ignored by East Coast, because Virgin's customer was the train user, not the Government.

Your use of the word 'profit' sums it up really. Basically East Coast were using taxpayer money to provide a service, at no risk to the 'company' itself, to provide a non-customer focussed service, based on dunning as much money out of people who had no option but to use their service, so the government would have even more of other peoples money to be inefficient with.

In other words, any 'profit' made by East Coast was actually money overpaid by commuters to use a service they already owned, on the basis that the Government knew they had no other choice, and had no incentive to re-invest to improve service.

A tax, in other words, and I seem to recall when I lived in the UK, I thought I was paying enough of that anyway, without being overcharged to sit in old rolling stock, by a company who could care less [but not a lot] about what my experience or comfort was.

'The market is better' is not dogma. It is, especially in the case of East Coast, a demonstrable fact

Where do you get your information from?

This is what Wikipedia says about the rolling stock:

Virgin Trains East Coast inherited a fleet of InterCity 125 and InterCity 225s from East Coast. Most driving vehicles received a Virgin logo within the first three days of the franchise, and all train sets received a full Virgin Trains East Coast livery by November 2015. Attention then turned to the interiors, with toilets to be refreshed and seat covers and carpets replaced.[14] The first refurbished set entered service on 31 December 2015, and by August 2016 all of the HST sets had been refurbished followed by the 225's completed refurbished fleet in January 2017.

In July 2015, an additional InterCity 125 set was transferred from East Midlands Trains.[15]

In September 2016, Virgin Trains East Coast hired three Class 90s from DB Cargo for use on services to Newark, York and Leeds.

[Cogs123]

Regular passengers praised the service provided by Britain's only publicly owned Rail franchise, & were angry & confused when David Cameron's Government decided to privatise it.
23,000 of them signed a petition demanding that it remained in public hands.
The first half of 2013 saw levels of punctuality not achieved by any operator of the East Coast mainline ' since records in their current form began'.
The company had also won 13 industry awards, including that of being Britain's top employer, as well as record levels of customer satisfaction.

Up to that point, Virgin, on the West Coast, had received £179.6million in revenue support from the Government, & a
£1.2Billion network grant.
In contrast, the East Coast had no revenue support & a lesser network grant of £980million.

Green MP Caroline Lucas said at the time, " The East Coast in public hands has paid more money back to the Government than any of the private operators. The evidence shows taxpayers are getting better value for money & passengers are getting a better experience as a result of it being in public hands. The fact that the Government is so willing to ignore the evidence,
Demonstrates their position is driven by ideology "

[Pete G]

Where do you get your information from?

Personal experience, I'm afraid. I used both West and East Coast Lines regularly if not frequently between 1990 and 2007, and I recall East Coast was still using separate loco/carriage combinations on some of its services even then, maybe I was mistaken?

Again, rest of it still holds though, Virgin customer service was much better than Eastern, especially in First, their fares cheaper/mile offpeak rates better, etc, etc.

Plus you still have to get over that users of the East Coast lines still effectively paid a billion pounds extra in tax for the years East Coast was nationalised, just for the privilege of using a service they already owned, and couldn't get anywhere else

[Cogs123]

I'm afraid that you will have to blame your unsatisfactory service on NXEC ( National Express East Coast ) Pete, as the franchise
by the public company only commenced on the 14th November 2009.

[Pete G]

I'm afraid that you will have to blame your unsatisfactory service on NXEC ( National Express East Coast ) Pete, as the franchise
by the public company only commenced on the 14th November 2009.

In that case, I apologise unreservedly to any East Coast customer service manager I may have unwillingly traduced.

My point, however that allowing government agencies to run 'businesses' especially virtual monopolies is always a bad idea, as management are targeted on political rather than efficiency targets, customer service inevitably suffers, no price pressures from competition, no direct responsibility for management, and an inevitable increase of the tax burden, win or lose, is always the worst of very, very, bad ideas, still stands