Out of interest I've just looked at flying (FlyBe) from Exeter to London City on 1st June flying out at 06.20 with a flight time of 1hr05. Day Return departing at 17.20 Cost £130
Same date by train at same times ( as close as) with journey times of 3hr23 will cost £118
It's a national scandal that these train company crooks can get away with charging anywhere near a comparable fare to flying.
The rail network is essential to the fabric of a nation and should be cheap, clean and reliable. None of those apply to our trains.
If it's so damn bad here how come net migration is so high? And people coming from all corners of the world. I like it here.
I agree - when you visit other countries you generally experience the best of them, and when you live in a country you generally experience the worst of it (and just occasionally the best).
Out of interest I've just looked at flying (FlyBe) from Exeter to London City on 1st June flying out at 06.20 with a flight time of 1hr05. Day Return departing at 17.20 Cost £130
Same date by train at same times ( as close as) with journey times of 3hr23 will cost £118
It's a national scandal that these train company crooks can get away with charging anywhere near a comparable fare to flying.
The rail network is essential to the fabric of a nation and should be cheap, clean and reliable. None of those apply to our trains.
Car fuel for same journey about £65.
Look up Rome to Milan. Or Barcelona to Madrid. We're not the only country where air and rail fares are comparable and more expensive than car fuel.
Here's mine, based on the answers I gave this morning. 78% Labour Foreign Policy • Social • Education • Domestic Policy • Science • Environmental • Healthcare • Economic • National Security • Electoral
77% Liberal Democrat Foreign Policy • Social • Healthcare • Criminal • Economic • Electoral • Education • National Security • Domestic Policy • Science • Environmental
Around a decade ago I had a weekend away in Edinburgh, travel options:
Coach, £28 return, 8hours each way Plane, £45 return, 1hr 20 mins each way Train, £110 return, 6 hours each way Car, £80 fuel, 7 hours each way
Why would any sane person chose the train as their preferred method?
If cost per hour was the only relevant factor then you wouldn't but there are several other factors:
- train generally goes city centre to city centre (most convenient generally); - of the four transport modes, train is surely the most relaxing (unless packed); - driving requires 14 hours of concentration (and you can't booze!); - reading on a coach generally isn't very pleasant; - some people don't like flying; - 1h 20m is the flight time but the 'door-to-door' time for anyone is surely at least four hours.
think the Conservatives have shot themselves in the foot more than once in their manifesto, and that comes from someone who has always voted Tory. I also actually like some of Corbyn's ideas but there is no way they can be funded as suggested imo. There is no doubt May will win but whether she will get an increased majority is doubtful.
May's promises are mainly uncosted. How is she allowed to get away with it? Pandering to press on Levinson perhaps.
The current regime has added £1100bn to national debt and only recently brought government spending back to where they started in % terms but somewhat short in monetary value. All this after 7 years austerity. Ignored by Tory press.
What are the positives from 7 years of Conservatives in power?
The problem for Labour is that in the highly unlikely event they won, the overnight response in the bond and FX markets would be so severe that their manifesto would be finished before it had even begun.
That is complete crap - do you work for the Daily Mail? It sounds like you are reading from their list? They won't win anyway so you can rejoice. Brexit will have a much bigger impact on markets and if a deal which involves staying in the single market is more likely, they would quickly rally.
If a hard left Labour government won a mandate on its current manifesto in a country already running a substantial fiscal deficit, do you think 10-year UK Gilts would still be yielding 1.1%?
I agree that Brexit will be no walk in the park, but Brexit combined with a Labour government would literally lead to a destruction in wealth (via sterling and the bond market [and then house prices]) which would be unprecedented.
Joining in on @PragueAddick 's theme. Why do we not question that a system exists in the world that can do that. Why is it OK for Bonds and FX markets to screw a country/ideal?
Not sure if you are serious, but someone has to buy the country's government bonds and they might conclude a 1.1% coupon for 10 years isn't very attractive in that context.
I am being serious but also know that it has its complexities.
I know I am being woefully naive but why does it have to be that way, it would appear that capitalism supports capitalism even when it is not working. And capitalism blocks progressive agendas and ensures they have a far harder chance of working.
Let's face it what is in the Labour manifesto is barely more radical than what Ted Health & Harold Macmillan were doing and I don't remember hearing about how the markets shafted them (although utterly stand to be corrected if they did).
Out of interest I've just looked at flying (FlyBe) from Exeter to London City on 1st June flying out at 06.20 with a flight time of 1hr05. Day Return departing at 17.20 Cost £130
Same date by train at same times ( as close as) with journey times of 3hr23 will cost £118
It's a national scandal that these train company crooks can get away with charging anywhere near a comparable fare to flying.
The rail network is essential to the fabric of a nation and should be cheap, clean and reliable. None of those apply to our trains.
The problem for Labour is that in the highly unlikely event they won, the overnight response in the bond and FX markets would be so severe that their manifesto would be finished before it had even begun.
That is complete crap - do you work for the Daily Mail? It sounds like you are reading from their list? They won't win anyway so you can rejoice. Brexit will have a much bigger impact on markets and if a deal which involves staying in the single market is more likely, they would quickly rally.
If a hard left Labour government won a mandate on its current manifesto in a country already running a substantial fiscal deficit, do you think 10-year UK Gilts would still be yielding 1.1%?
I agree that Brexit will be no walk in the park, but Brexit combined with a Labour government would literally lead to a destruction in wealth (via sterling and the bond market [and then house prices]) which would be unprecedented.
Joining in on @PragueAddick 's theme. Why do we not question that a system exists in the world that can do that. Why is it OK for Bonds and FX markets to screw a country/ideal?
Not sure if you are serious, but someone has to buy the country's government bonds and they might conclude a 1.1% coupon for 10 years isn't very attractive in that context.
I am being serious but also know that it has its complexities.
I know I am being woefully naive but why does it have to be that way, it would appear that capitalism supports capitalism even when it is not working. And capitalism blocks progressive agendas and ensures they have a far harder chance of working.
Let's face it what is in the Labour manifesto is barely more radical than what Ted Health & Harold Macmillan were doing and I don't remember hearing about how the markets shafted them (although utterly stand to be corrected if they did).
The government can only meet its spending targets through some combination of taxation (or at extremes expropriation!), borrowing and money-printing.
We've done taxation to death on this thread already (and as we know currently govt spending exceeds tax receipts).
With regard to borrowing (which is to your point), the typical buyers of safe low-coupon government debt are not nasty capitalists like hedge funds but overseas sovereigns, pension funds, building societies, insurance companies, retirees etc.. The 'bond market' that gets all of the bad press is just the active trading amongst all of these participants (with abundant liquidity being essential to encourage them to buy the bonds in the first place).
Money-printing generally adds badly for obvious inflationary reasons since by definition it trashes the currency.
---
EDIT: Opportunistically the government can also sell down public assets (privatisation) and/or potentially tap into central bank reserves but neither is a long-term solution, and in the case of the former is mainly tapped out.
Out of interest I've just looked at flying (FlyBe) from Exeter to London City on 1st June flying out at 06.20 with a flight time of 1hr05. Day Return departing at 17.20 Cost £130
Same date by train at same times ( as close as) with journey times of 3hr23 will cost £118
It's a national scandal that these train company crooks can get away with charging anywhere near a comparable fare to flying.
The rail network is essential to the fabric of a nation and should be cheap, clean and reliable. None of those apply to our trains.
Daughter just moved to Torquay so spending a lot of time travelling at the moment. My son in law will need to travel to London for work one day a week. We've been looking at options for him mainly.
It doesn't really matter though - I mean Piers Wally Morgan or some similar idiot may be really keen to extract the cost on our behalf, but let's take the nationalisation of the railways - the policy is to take them back when the contracts run out. So it isn't a day one commitment and nobody knows what the exact cost will be. The Manifesto - red or blue shows were the party is heading. It is better to judge who has kept their promises. Cameron's government promised to hold a referendum on Brexit - they kept that, they said in 2010 Austerity would take 5 years - well they were wrong about that as a couple of examples.
Bernie Saunders has it right. The problem really is about the elite - the people who have the wealth - not the people who earn £100k, 200k, £300k etc... no I mean the ultra rich - Billionaires and richer and the corporations - teh minsicule percent who own most of everything and it is a global thing. Anyway these people are not putting their money in a bank vault and sitting on it, they are using it politically. They are using it to elect politicians who look after their interests. So they get their tax breaks, sometimes not paying any tax at all or less than you and I. So the rich get richer, the middle class shrinks and some people - working people - live in desperate poverty - and then somebody comes alsong and says - it's that immigrant's fault or that scrounger - you have to hate that person. They are keeping you down - so rather than look upwards, people are looking below them for the problem. People can't be expected to spend their lives becoming politically aware, so they can be fed this crap if you have the means to feed it.
When you have the bought press and politicians perpetrating this myth, you end up voting for Trump or the right. You can see an example of the propaganda in the papers today - May's socialist maifesto - May stealing Labour's ground - it is ridiculous. It was a response to Labours manifesto going down well, despite all the proverbial they have thrown at it. But people have not got to the point where they see through it yet. They will though.
Corbyn is a mad lunatic, I mean - look he is against austerity - gasp - even though many of teh world's leading economists say it doesn't work and base that on evidence, and he is against the Iraq war - bloody loon! But it gets worse, he is against bombing Syria FFS!, and he wants to provide free education and genuinely challenge sexism - it is getting worse, what a mad man. But that's not all - He believes in re-nationalising utility and rail companies - OMG! He want to build hundreds of thousands of new home each year - what planet is the fool on? He wants to invest in the NHS - now this is getting ridiculous. These policies are pure lunacy! He wants to take people out of poverty. Why do we associate him with loony policies, they seem ok to me - is it because we are fed a stereotype. He is against rich people - is he really? What is a rich person? Yes people who earn good salaries 80k or more will pay a bit more- but he wants them to earn a bit more - the elite are hiding behind the rich - they are not the same thing!
I see old ladies being questioned and telling us Corbyn lacks charisma. I mean where did they get that from? It is all fed to us by the elite and they inetend to get richer and richer and more powerful at everybody elses expense. It won't happen as democracy will win out, but there is a barrier to bash through and in Corbyn we have somebody who has started doing this, and in Saunders the Americans have somebody doing the same.
They same old ladies say - they are all the same - that is exactly what the elite want you to think. They are not all the same - yes Blair was a Neo Liberal in pretty much the same way as Cameron and May were Neo liberals. Blair was perceived to be no threat to the elite and he was supported by them because the felt safer if the Labour party worked for them. They are scared of Labour and that is why they manipulate everything!
Great stuff. Anyone who calls Corbyn part of the metropolitan elite then votes for May ought to have their bank accounts emptied into the London Garden Bridge fund
Muttley, you implicitly raise an interesting point regarding Corbyn's lack of charisma (to be fair I don't find myself desperate to take Theresa May or Tim Farron out for a pint!).
Despite media-driven impressions to the contrary, we actually have a parliamentary system in which the collection of local constituency MPs decide who should be PM, not the country. After all neither Gordon Brown or May have won a general election.
As a result we have a strange mish-mash of a Presidential-style personality-driven process (where people think they're voting for an individual leader) and a traditional local parliamentary election process.
Out of interest I've just looked at flying (FlyBe) from Exeter to London City on 1st June flying out at 06.20 with a flight time of 1hr05. Day Return departing at 17.20 Cost £130
Same date by train at same times ( as close as) with journey times of 3hr23 will cost £118
It's a national scandal that these train company crooks can get away with charging anywhere near a comparable fare to flying.
The rail network is essential to the fabric of a nation and should be cheap, clean and reliable. None of those apply to our trains.
Daughter just moved to Torquay so spending a lot of time travelling at the moment. My son in law will need to travel to London for work one day a week. We've been looking at options for him mainly.
The problem really is about the elite - the people who have the wealth - not the people who earn £100k, 200k, £300k etc... no I mean the ultra rich - Billionaires and richer and the corporations - teh minsicule percent who own most of everything and it is a global thing. Anyway these people are not putting their money in a bank vault and sitting on it, they are using it politically.
Agree with Muttley. I am sort of haunted by the thought of about 300 billionaires across the planet owning most of the worlds wealth and using it to gain power and yet more wealth. I guess they are immune to being concerned about many millions of people staving or in poverty. I think this atrocity trickles down to us in the UK, so our governments always seem to struggle to balance the books and care for the needy.
Saw in the news here that one of May's proposals is to double the tax that companies pay on employees (or something) for every non-British worker. This sounds like classic dog whistle populism - why are they so obsessed with foreigners?
Saw in the news here that one of May's proposals is to double the tax that companies pay on employees (or something) for every non-British worker. This sounds like classic dog whistle populism - why are they so obsessed with foreigners?
Because too many voters have an irrational hatred towards non-Brits.
There is nobody on CL who could be more pro-railway than me. Heaven knows, I quite often travel back to Prague that way despite air being cheaper. I understand also that a lot of France, and Germany, is suitable for high speed line building. And I understand entirely the argument for HS2. However, a lot of the excuses you provide don't bear scrutiny: 1. look at the French railway map. If you see a station called xxx-TGV, that is a new station. There are loads of them 2. Trust me, TGV lines have tunnels too. 3. If you say that there are different estimates for HS2, including different things, well that is part of the problem. There should be one, transparent figure, which can then be fully benchmarked against the cost of TGV/ICE lines and with any caveats such as you mention which hold water.
What is in fact needed is both HS2, and further North asap, and an upgrade to increase capacity on other lines. But we haven't apparently got the money because HS2 is so expensive. Personally I have no confidence either that it will be delivered on time or on budget. That's because, unlike the French and Germans, we have virtually no experience of building such lines. We have HS1, it is 70 miles long. The French and Germans have been building these things progressively for 30 years. Have we had the humility to perhaps get French or German experience involved with this project? If not, why not? Why do we think we know best on this, when for idealogical reasons we allow the French and germans to actually run, at a profit, most of our utilities?
I am not bashing HS2. I am bashing the fact that nobody independent (unless you can show me otherwise) has scrutinised the numbers, and that the railway project management skills of the DoT have been found wanting far too often since it became clear that a national railway as a strategic asset was not apparently what the British wanted.
I know I'm preaching to the converted about railways on this site but here goes anyway!
HS2 has been demonised by its opponents and the popular media as some sort of mad vanity project when it's actually just a normal railway based on principles and technology now adopted with varying degrees of success all over the world from Morocco to China. Stubborn British railway planners and engineers have finally admitted that we have indeed been getting it a bit wrong and need to start copying and getting help from the rest of the world. And we give them hell for it!
I suspect many of the problems arose because the original PR attempted to sell the project as though it were a new car emphasising high speed and sexy unique features. They should have just said "We're gonna build a whole new line and run lots of big double decker trains so there will be plenty of empty seats to fill and the prices are bound to come down - just like they do in France and Germany. And because there will be hardly any signals or junctions to maintain we won't have to close it every other weekend and run fucking buses instead".
I am not expert enough to prove that the line is not over-priced - let's face it - it probably is! But any sensible analysis or announcement seems to result in even more ridiculous statistics and meaningless comparisons appearing in the press. HS2 just have to mention something like the mere possibility of a future connection with Heathrow and the headline cost suddenly goes up by a few billion with a new runway included for good measure! So they've learnt to just shut up and keep quiet!
By the way, the first phase (141 miles) involves about 27 miles of tunnel - most of it in and under the outskirts of London. That's never going to be cheap.
There are not so many tunnels on the TGV although they have become less rare on newer lines. If you travel south from Calais, I don't think there's a tunnel until you get well past Lyon. (Lille station is underground but that's more a cutting than a tunnel). Then there's a longish one to take you under the suburbs of Marseille because (as in London) the existing line was needed for commuter traffic and could not cope with extra TGVs.
The problem for Labour is that in the highly unlikely event they won, the overnight response in the bond and FX markets would be so severe that their manifesto would be finished before it had even begun.
That is complete crap - do you work for the Daily Mail? It sounds like you are reading from their list? They won't win anyway so you can rejoice. Brexit will have a much bigger impact on markets and if a deal which involves staying in the single market is more likely, they would quickly rally.
If a hard left Labour government won a mandate on its current manifesto in a country already running a substantial fiscal deficit, do you think 10-year UK Gilts would still be yielding 1.1%?
I agree that Brexit will be no walk in the park, but Brexit combined with a Labour government would literally lead to a destruction in wealth (via sterling and the bond market [and then house prices]) which would be unprecedented.
Joining in on @PragueAddick 's theme. Why do we not question that a system exists in the world that can do that. Why is it OK for Bonds and FX markets to screw a country/ideal?
Not sure if you are serious, but someone has to buy the country's government bonds and they might conclude a 1.1% coupon for 10 years isn't very attractive in that context.
I am being serious but also know that it has its complexities.
I know I am being woefully naive but why does it have to be that way, it would appear that capitalism supports capitalism even when it is not working. And capitalism blocks progressive agendas and ensures they have a far harder chance of working.
Let's face it what is in the Labour manifesto is barely more radical than what Ted Health & Harold Macmillan were doing and I don't remember hearing about how the markets shafted them (although utterly stand to be corrected if they did).
The government can only meet its spending targets through some combination of taxation (or at extremes expropriation!), borrowing and money-printing.
We've done taxation to death on this thread already (and as we know currently govt spending exceeds tax receipts).
With regard to borrowing (which is to your point), the typical buyers of safe low-coupon government debt are not nasty capitalists like hedge funds but overseas sovereigns, pension funds, building societies, insurance companies, retirees etc.. The 'bond market' that gets all of the bad press is just the active trading amongst all of these participants (with abundant liquidity being essential to encourage them to buy the bonds in the first place).
Money-printing generally adds badly for obvious inflationary reasons since by definition it trashes the currency.
---
EDIT: Opportunistically the government can also sell down public assets (privatisation) and/or potentially tap into central bank reserves but neither is a long-term solution, and in the case of the former is mainly tapped out.
I think you missed out the option where they tear the backside out of our public services in the name of "living within our means" or some other such clichéd nonsense.
Not that this particular government is any good at that even because they have focused almost exclusively on cuts rather than growth. It's an easier sell to the public of course, until it's their parents care package that gets cut, or their childs classroom assistant that's laid off. Then it becomes because of poor management, excessive salaries and gold plated public sector pensions, etc, etc. It's never connected to the fact that this government is systematically dismantling our public sector in its pursuance of years of austerity politics.
Its worth remembering that the Tories have now said that they don't think they'll have a balanced budget until 2025. That'll be 15+ years of cuts to your public services. By that stage I fear many of our public services will have disappeared completely or be beyond any reasonable rescue...
If it's so damn bad here how come net migration is so high? And people coming from all corners of the world. I like it here.
I thought it was because all immigrants get $4,000 a month in benefits and an 8 bedroom house?
Britain is still demonstrably one of the best countries in the world to live in and if you were someone fleeing a war zone, or just looking to move to a richer country, then the The UK is likely to be in your top 10 options. But, just because it is good now, doesn't mean it couldn't and shouldn't be better.
Britain is a country which is somewhat in decline. Maybe not rapid nor necessarily universal decline, but decline none-the-less. Some of that is inevitable in a post imperialist world but a lot of essential public services are seriously struggling to maintain what many would see as minimum standards. Yes you could be living in far worse places, and the UK is probably never going become a truly impoverished nation, but do you feel the future for the country is bright at the moment? I'm not sure I do.
If it's so damn bad here how come net migration is so high? And people coming from all corners of the world. I like it here.
I thought it was because all immigrants get $4,000 a month in benefits and an 8 bedroom house?
Britain is still demonstrably one of the best countries in the world to live in and if you were someone fleeing a war zone, or just looking to move to a richer country, then the The UK is likely to be in your top 10 options. But, just because it is good now, doesn't mean it couldn't and shouldn't be better.
Britain is a country which is somewhat in decline. Maybe not rapid nor necessarily universal decline, but decline none-the-less. Some of that is inevitable in a post imperialist world but a lot of essential public services are seriously struggling to maintain what many would see as minimum standards. Yes you could be living in far worse places, and the UK is probably never going become a truly impoverished nation, but do you feel the future for the country is bright at the moment? I'm not sure I do.
I wish we had better quality politicians across all parties. The shadow cabinet is awful but Theresa Mays next cabinet is not exactly going to be stuffed with great promise or talent. I voted leave after much heart searching because I am fond of travelling to Europe and have several (non U.K.) friends in France and Germany.But as an island community I never felt it was a great union and I would actually like less politicians impacting directly on our affairs. Having said all that I think we are a resourceful nation with individuals with great talent just a shame they are not in politics. Perhaps a British macron will appear before 2022.!!
If it's so damn bad here how come net migration is so high? And people coming from all corners of the world. I like it here.
I thought it was because all immigrants get $4,000 a month in benefits and an 8 bedroom house?
Britain is still demonstrably one of the best countries in the world to live in and if you were someone fleeing a war zone, or just looking to move to a richer country, then the The UK is likely to be in your top 10 options. But, just because it is good now, doesn't mean it couldn't and shouldn't be better.
Britain is a country which is somewhat in decline. Maybe not rapid nor necessarily universal decline, but decline none-the-less. Some of that is inevitable in a post imperialist world but a lot of essential public services are seriously struggling to maintain what many would see as minimum standards. Yes you could be living in far worse places, and the UK is probably never going become a truly impoverished nation, but do you feel the future for the country is bright at the moment? I'm not sure I do.
I wish we had better quality politicians across all parties. The shadow cabinet is awful but Theresa Mays next cabinet is not exactly going to be stuffed with great promise or talent. I voted leave after much heart searching because I am fond of travelling to Europe and have several (non U.K.) friends in France and Germany.But as an island community I never felt it was a great union and I would actually like less politicians impacting directly on our affairs. Having said all that I think we are a resourceful nation with individuals with great talent just a shame they are not in politics. Perhaps a British macron will appear before 2022.!!
Parliamentary system makes it almost impossible for a Macron type revolution unfortunately.
If it's so damn bad here how come net migration is so high? And people coming from all corners of the world. I like it here.
I thought it was because all immigrants get $4,000 a month in benefits and an 8 bedroom house?
Britain is still demonstrably one of the best countries in the world to live in and if you were someone fleeing a war zone, or just looking to move to a richer country, then the The UK is likely to be in your top 10 options. But, just because it is good now, doesn't mean it couldn't and shouldn't be better.
Britain is a country which is somewhat in decline. Maybe not rapid nor necessarily universal decline, but decline none-the-less. Some of that is inevitable in a post imperialist world but a lot of essential public services are seriously struggling to maintain what many would see as minimum standards. Yes you could be living in far worse places, and the UK is probably never going become a truly impoverished nation, but do you feel the future for the country is bright at the moment? I'm not sure I do.
I wish we had better quality politicians across all parties. The shadow cabinet is awful but Theresa Mays next cabinet is not exactly going to be stuffed with great promise or talent. I voted leave after much heart searching because I am fond of travelling to Europe and have several (non U.K.) friends in France and Germany.But as an island community I never felt it was a great union and I would actually like less politicians impacting directly on our affairs. Having said all that I think we are a resourceful nation with individuals with great talent just a shame they are not in politics. Perhaps a British macron will appear before 2022.!!
Parliamentary system makes it almost impossible for a Macron type revolution unfortunately.
Totally agree with you. Until we get PR or something similar we are stuck with what we've got.
If it's so damn bad here how come net migration is so high? And people coming from all corners of the world. I like it here.
I thought it was because all immigrants get $4,000 a month in benefits and an 8 bedroom house?
Britain is still demonstrably one of the best countries in the world to live in and if you were someone fleeing a war zone, or just looking to move to a richer country, then the The UK is likely to be in your top 10 options. But, just because it is good now, doesn't mean it couldn't and shouldn't be better.
Britain is a country which is somewhat in decline. Maybe not rapid nor necessarily universal decline, but decline none-the-less. Some of that is inevitable in a post imperialist world but a lot of essential public services are seriously struggling to maintain what many would see as minimum standards. Yes you could be living in far worse places, and the UK is probably never going become a truly impoverished nation, but do you feel the future for the country is bright at the moment? I'm not sure I do.
I wish we had better quality politicians across all parties. The shadow cabinet is awful but Theresa Mays next cabinet is not exactly going to be stuffed with great promise or talent. I voted leave after much heart searching because I am fond of travelling to Europe and have several (non U.K.) friends in France and Germany.But as an island community I never felt it was a great union and I would actually like less politicians impacting directly on our affairs. Having said all that I think we are a resourceful nation with individuals with great talent just a shame they are not in politics. Perhaps a British macron will appear before 2022.!!
Parliamentary system makes it almost impossible for a Macron type revolution unfortunately.
Totally agree with you. Until we get PR or something similar we are stuck with what we've got.
Blair was as close as we got - amazing result in 1997.
If it's so damn bad here how come net migration is so high? And people coming from all corners of the world. I like it here.
I thought it was because all immigrants get $4,000 a month in benefits and an 8 bedroom house?
Britain is still demonstrably one of the best countries in the world to live in and if you were someone fleeing a war zone, or just looking to move to a richer country, then the The UK is likely to be in your top 10 options. But, just because it is good now, doesn't mean it couldn't and shouldn't be better.
Britain is a country which is somewhat in decline. Maybe not rapid nor necessarily universal decline, but decline none-the-less. Some of that is inevitable in a post imperialist world but a lot of essential public services are seriously struggling to maintain what many would see as minimum standards. Yes you could be living in far worse places, and the UK is probably never going become a truly impoverished nation, but do you feel the future for the country is bright at the moment? I'm not sure I do.
I wish we had better quality politicians across all parties. The shadow cabinet is awful but Theresa Mays next cabinet is not exactly going to be stuffed with great promise or talent. I voted leave after much heart searching because I am fond of travelling to Europe and have several (non U.K.) friends in France and Germany.But as an island community I never felt it was a great union and I would actually like less politicians impacting directly on our affairs. Having said all that I think we are a resourceful nation with individuals with great talent just a shame they are not in politics. Perhaps a British macron will appear before 2022.!!
Parliamentary system makes it almost impossible for a Macron type revolution unfortunately.
Totally agree with you. Until we get PR or something similar we are stuck with what we've got.
Blair was as close as we got - amazing result in 1997.
I am not a fan of Blair but he did win three elections for Labour. I doubt that anyone will repeat that in my lifetime
Comments
Cost £130
Same date by train at same times ( as close as) with journey times of 3hr23 will cost £118
It's a national scandal that these train company crooks can get away with charging anywhere near a comparable fare to flying.
The rail network is essential to the fabric of a nation and should be cheap, clean and reliable. None of those apply to our trains.
Car fuel for same journey about £65.
Coach, £28 return, 8hours each way
Plane, £45 return, 1hr 20 mins each way
Train, £110 return, 6 hours each way
Car, £80 fuel, 7 hours each way
Why would any sane person chose the train as their preferred method?
78%
Labour
Foreign Policy • Social • Education • Domestic Policy • Science • Environmental • Healthcare • Economic • National Security • Electoral
77%
Liberal Democrat
Foreign Policy • Social • Healthcare • Criminal • Economic • Electoral • Education • National Security • Domestic Policy • Science • Environmental
75%
Plaid Cymru
Foreign Policy • Social • Environmental • Economic • Healthcare • Domestic Policy • Education • Electoral •
75%
SNP
Foreign Policy • Social • Economic • Healthcare • Environmental • Domestic Policy • Education • Electoral • National Security
70%
Green
Foreign Policy • Social • Economic • Healthcare • Environmental • Domestic Policy • Education • Electoral • Criminal • National Security
67%
Sinn Féin
Foreign Policy • Social • Education • National Security • Economic • Healthcare • Environmental • Domestic Policy • Electoral
40%
Conservative
Social • Environmental • Science
32%
UKIP
Social • Environmental • Science
31%
Not in your district
Democratic Unionist
Domestic Policy • Healthcare • Environmental • Science
27%
British National Party
Healthcare • Science
- train generally goes city centre to city centre (most convenient generally);
- of the four transport modes, train is surely the most relaxing (unless packed);
- driving requires 14 hours of concentration (and you can't booze!);
- reading on a coach generally isn't very pleasant;
- some people don't like flying;
- 1h 20m is the flight time but the 'door-to-door' time for anyone is surely at least four hours.
The current regime has added £1100bn to national debt and only recently brought government spending back to where they started in % terms but somewhat short in monetary value. All this after 7 years austerity. Ignored by Tory press.
What are the positives from 7 years of Conservatives in power?
I know I am being woefully naive but why does it have to be that way, it would appear that capitalism supports capitalism even when it is not working. And capitalism blocks progressive agendas and ensures they have a far harder chance of working.
Let's face it what is in the Labour manifesto is barely more radical than what Ted Health & Harold Macmillan were doing and I don't remember hearing about how the markets shafted them (although utterly stand to be corrected if they did).
We've done taxation to death on this thread already (and as we know currently govt spending exceeds tax receipts).
With regard to borrowing (which is to your point), the typical buyers of safe low-coupon government debt are not nasty capitalists like hedge funds but overseas sovereigns, pension funds, building societies, insurance companies, retirees etc.. The 'bond market' that gets all of the bad press is just the active trading amongst all of these participants (with abundant liquidity being essential to encourage them to buy the bonds in the first place).
Money-printing generally adds badly for obvious inflationary reasons since by definition it trashes the currency.
---
EDIT: Opportunistically the government can also sell down public assets (privatisation) and/or potentially tap into central bank reserves but neither is a long-term solution, and in the case of the former is mainly tapped out.
Bernie Saunders has it right. The problem really is about the elite - the people who have the wealth - not the people who earn £100k, 200k, £300k etc... no I mean the ultra rich - Billionaires and richer and the corporations - teh minsicule percent who own most of everything and it is a global thing. Anyway these people are not putting their money in a bank vault and sitting on it, they are using it politically. They are using it to elect politicians who look after their interests. So they get their tax breaks, sometimes not paying any tax at all or less than you and I. So the rich get richer, the middle class shrinks and some people - working people - live in desperate poverty - and then somebody comes alsong and says - it's that immigrant's fault or that scrounger - you have to hate that person. They are keeping you down - so rather than look upwards, people are looking below them for the problem. People can't be expected to spend their lives becoming politically aware, so they can be fed this crap if you have the means to feed it.
When you have the bought press and politicians perpetrating this myth, you end up voting for Trump or the right. You can see an example of the propaganda in the papers today - May's socialist maifesto - May stealing Labour's ground - it is ridiculous. It was a response to Labours manifesto going down well, despite all the proverbial they have thrown at it. But people have not got to the point where they see through it yet. They will though.
Corbyn is a mad lunatic, I mean - look he is against austerity - gasp - even though many of teh world's leading economists say it doesn't work and base that on evidence, and he is against the Iraq war - bloody loon! But it gets worse, he is against bombing Syria FFS!, and he wants to provide free education and genuinely challenge sexism - it is getting worse, what a mad man. But that's not all - He believes in re-nationalising utility and rail companies - OMG! He want to build hundreds of thousands of new home each year - what planet is the fool on? He wants to invest in the NHS - now this is getting ridiculous. These policies are pure lunacy! He wants to take people out of poverty. Why do we associate him with loony policies, they seem ok to me - is it because we are fed a stereotype. He is against rich people - is he really? What is a rich person? Yes people who earn good salaries 80k or more will pay a bit more- but he wants them to earn a bit more - the elite are hiding behind the rich - they are not the same thing!
I see old ladies being questioned and telling us Corbyn lacks charisma. I mean where did they get that from? It is all fed to us by the elite and they inetend to get richer and richer and more powerful at everybody elses expense. It won't happen as democracy will win out, but there is a barrier to bash through and in Corbyn we have somebody who has started doing this, and in Saunders the Americans have somebody doing the same.
They same old ladies say - they are all the same - that is exactly what the elite want you to think. They are not all the same - yes Blair was a Neo Liberal in pretty much the same way as Cameron and May were Neo liberals. Blair was perceived to be no threat to the elite and he was supported by them because the felt safer if the Labour party worked for them. They are scared of Labour and that is why they manipulate everything!
Despite media-driven impressions to the contrary, we actually have a parliamentary system in which the collection of local constituency MPs decide who should be PM, not the country. After all neither Gordon Brown or May have won a general election.
As a result we have a strange mish-mash of a Presidential-style personality-driven process (where people think they're voting for an individual leader) and a traditional local parliamentary election process.
Trains
Any photos of trains would be much appreciated.
The problem really is about the elite - the people who have the wealth - not the people who earn £100k, 200k, £300k etc... no I mean the ultra rich - Billionaires and richer and the corporations - teh minsicule percent who own most of everything and it is a global thing. Anyway these people are not putting their money in a bank vault and sitting on it, they are using it politically.
Agree with Muttley. I am sort of haunted by the thought of about 300 billionaires across the planet owning most of the worlds wealth and using it to gain power and yet more wealth. I guess they are immune to being concerned about many millions of people staving or in poverty.
I think this atrocity trickles down to us in the UK, so our governments always seem to struggle to balance the books and care for the needy.
HS2 has been demonised by its opponents and the popular media as some sort of mad vanity project when it's actually just a normal railway based on principles and technology now adopted with varying degrees of success all over the world from Morocco to China. Stubborn British railway planners and engineers have finally admitted that we have indeed been getting it a bit wrong and need to start copying and getting help from the rest of the world. And we give them hell for it!
I suspect many of the problems arose because the original PR attempted to sell the project as though it were a new car emphasising high speed and sexy unique features. They should have just said "We're gonna build a whole new line and run lots of big double decker trains so there will be plenty of empty seats to fill and the prices are bound to come down - just like they do in France and Germany. And because there will be hardly any signals or junctions to maintain we won't have to close it every other weekend and run fucking buses instead".
I am not expert enough to prove that the line is not over-priced - let's face it - it probably is!
But any sensible analysis or announcement seems to result in even more ridiculous statistics and meaningless comparisons appearing in the press. HS2 just have to mention something like the mere possibility of a future connection with Heathrow and the headline cost suddenly goes up by a few billion with a new runway included for good measure! So they've learnt to just shut up and keep quiet!
By the way, the first phase (141 miles) involves about 27 miles of tunnel - most of it in and under the outskirts of London. That's never going to be cheap.
There are not so many tunnels on the TGV although they have become less rare on newer lines. If you travel south from Calais, I don't think there's a tunnel until you get well past Lyon. (Lille station is underground but that's more a cutting than a tunnel). Then there's a longish one to take you under the suburbs of Marseille because (as in London) the existing line was needed for commuter traffic and could not cope with extra TGVs.
Not that this particular government is any good at that even because they have focused almost exclusively on cuts rather than growth. It's an easier sell to the public of course, until it's their parents care package that gets cut, or their childs classroom assistant that's laid off. Then it becomes because of poor management, excessive salaries and gold plated public sector pensions, etc, etc. It's never connected to the fact that this government is systematically dismantling our public sector in its pursuance of years of austerity politics.
Its worth remembering that the Tories have now said that they don't think they'll have a balanced budget until 2025. That'll be 15+ years of cuts to your public services. By that stage I fear many of our public services will have disappeared completely or be beyond any reasonable rescue...
Britain is still demonstrably one of the best countries in the world to live in and if you were someone fleeing a war zone, or just looking to move to a richer country, then the The UK is likely to be in your top 10 options. But, just because it is good now, doesn't mean it couldn't and shouldn't be better.
Britain is a country which is somewhat in decline. Maybe not rapid nor necessarily universal decline, but decline none-the-less. Some of that is inevitable in a post imperialist world but a lot of essential public services are seriously struggling to maintain what many would see as minimum standards. Yes you could be living in far worse places, and the UK is probably never going become a truly impoverished nation, but do you feel the future for the country is bright at the moment? I'm not sure I do.
Until we get PR or something similar we are stuck with what we've got.
I doubt that anyone will repeat that in my lifetime