Friday 4th September

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 5:49 am

Good Morning

Blimey that took me long enough having poked around much of the site when it was staring me in the face all along. At least I added one or two contributions earlier.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 5:49 am

@HindleA

I appreciate you may be busy today but should you look in I hope all goes well, A. May frowns and looks of concern be replaced by smiles and good cheer. She deserves that.

Postscript: I appreciate I did not know her, A, but worry thee not. I am of no significance.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 5:51 am

Just following on from last night

Corbyn is a 1981 Bennite?

Are you sure?

Looking at his policies would suggest he is a 80s Tory wet or perhaps a mainstream Thatcherite?

The only left-wing policy coming from that era is the Trident renewal who has less relevance to a 2015 audience and perhaps his NATO skepticism - but then a commitment to spend 2% on defence is not something I am particularly in favour of when everything is being cut and I am not convinced there has been a strategic vision of what we need to defend from future threats - I think Corbyn suggested a SDR. Seems sensible place to start!

If the Labour Party moves further to the right as TE seems to want on the economy and social spending then I am lost to the party.....the party is as far right as it can go with me continuing to support it and any pandering to those further to the right begs the question....how far do we go?

Continuing with this path leads us to the distorted world of the USA where the poorest believe that people being unfathomably rich and having no social security is 'good for them'!

If you believe the British people are better than that then we should take the path of exposing the lies of the Tories, exposing the people who slavishly support them in the press (what has gone on at NewsUK this week is so brazen that you have to shake your head in admiration) and educating them on what benefits a more left-wing approach would bring to them in their lives....not an 'aspiration' of a dream existence in 20 years - but the reality of now and the immediate future. Aspiration as defined by the Tories and coming from the US is aspiration based on nothing but a mythical world we would all like to live in.....but none will ever do so

The easy option is just to move further to the right and not take this challenge on

The Labour Party in 2015 is far, far tot he right of the one of 1981.....as are the Tories. Even some of Corbyn's policies would be considered loony right wing in the 1980s....shows how far it has gone

It is time (well it was time about 10 years ago) to say enough.....

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 6:45 am

Prompted by a tortoise who had buried his head, rather then poking my nose where it isn't wanted, pulling his leg works wonders. As for the Fall, now is the time for reaping rewards.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 7:01 am

Sorry for yet another idle thought but one for Gove and his successor. I recognise patterns wherever I look and you don't learn that by so called rigour you learn that in play and discovery. Both are important, not one at the expense of the other. You know nowt! Now look who's talkng!

Brekky now. Today I shall be having an orange with my meusli... and not forgetting the coffee. I slept well btw, not that you asked, but three hours straight on top of my half hour nap yesterday and I'm on top of the world. Not in a polar sense you understand.

Edit: corrected 'top on' to 'on top'

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 7:20 am

Listening to Ed Vaizey just now and I finally understand Cameron's et al's claim of being one of the foremost powers in helping refugees. Would hate to think they were lying after all; he mentioned support of refugee camps. Well thank you for such benevolence don't you think they want a damn sight better than canvas in the middle of nowhere?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 7:28 am

@howsillyofme1

More fool me too.

Roughly translated as I totally agree. Just thought I'd try that one again in context this time.

I am sick of a world where corporations and the avaricious have all the wealth and nations have none.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 7:43 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:Just following on from last night

Corbyn is a 1981 Bennite?

Are you sure?

Looking at his policies would suggest he is a 80s Tory wet or perhaps a mainstream Thatcherite?

The only left-wing policy coming from that era is the Trident renewal who has less relevance to a 2015 audience and perhaps his NATO skepticism - but then a commitment to spend 2% on defence is not something I am particularly in favour of when everything is being cut and I am not convinced there has been a strategic vision of what we need to defend from future threats - I think Corbyn suggested a SDR. Seems sensible place to start!

If the Labour Party moves further to the right as TE seems to want on the economy and social spending then I am lost to the party.....the party is as far right as it can go with me continuing to support it and any pandering to those further to the right begs the question....how far do we go?

Continuing with this path leads us to the distorted world of the USA where the poorest believe that people being unfathomably rich and having no social security is 'good for them'!

If you believe the British people are better than that then we should take the path of exposing the lies of the Tories, exposing the people who slavishly support them in the press (what has gone on at NewsUK this week is so brazen that you have to shake your head in admiration) and educating them on what benefits a more left-wing approach would bring to them in their lives....not an 'aspiration' of a dream existence in 20 years - but the reality of now and the immediate future. Aspiration as defined by the Tories and coming from the US is aspiration based on nothing but a mythical world we would all like to live in.....but none will ever do so

The easy option is just to move further to the right and not take this challenge on

The Labour Party in 2015 is far, far tot he right of the one of 1981.....as are the Tories. Even some of Corbyn's policies would be considered loony right wing in the 1980s....shows how far it has gone

It is time (well it was time about 10 years ago) to say enough.....

Depends what you mean.

During his entire political life Corbyn has opposed Nato and proposed UK withdrawal from the EU. The former is part of his consistent anti-western stance, which we see in his equating Putin's invasion of a sovereign country with Nato's acceptance of Poland as a member, his opposition to the intervention in Kosovo, his bracketing of the death of Osama bin Laden with the 9/11 atrocities as 'tragedies' and his willingness to share platforms with some very dubious people, when he would never appear on the same platform as the BNP. It is true that he has downplayed all of this during the campaign, but foreign policy issues are what he has spent the last 32 years as an MP focusing on.

On domestic policy, he is a throwback. So he wants re-nationalsiation, and not just of rail which was re-nationalised in 2002. The re-opening mines remark was revealing as it showed how he wants to re-fight battles lost. The People's QE is, I agree, a new form of barminess. Not even Benn proposed to pay for things by seigniorage as I remember. The £120bn tax gap stuff is straight out of the 'easy solution' Bennite playbook.

So no, Corbyn is what he has always been. A member of the Bennite hard left. He has voted against Labour more often than any other Labour MP, not just overtime but constantly. That is because he has views far to the left of the PLP (which is why only 20 seriously backed him). The hard left needed a standard bearer. Abbott last time, McDonnell before that. none of the others in his faction wanted to stand, and he reluctantly did.

Labour, and the UK, has never seen anything like it before.

Post by **refitman** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 7:54 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:Just following on from last night

Corbyn is a 1981 Bennite?

Are you sure?

Looking at his policies would suggest he is a 80s Tory wet or perhaps a mainstream Thatcherite?

The only left-wing policy coming from that era is the Trident renewal who has less relevance to a 2015 audience and perhaps his NATO skepticism - but then a commitment to spend 2% on defence is not something I am particularly in favour of when everything is being cut and I am not convinced there has been a strategic vision of what we need to defend from future threats - I think Corbyn suggested a SDR. Seems sensible place to start!

If the Labour Party moves further to the right as TE seems to want on the economy and social spending then I am lost to the party.....the party is as far right as it can go with me continuing to support it and any pandering to those further to the right begs the question....how far do we go?

Continuing with this path leads us to the distorted world of the USA where the poorest believe that people being unfathomably rich and having no social security is 'good for them'!

If you believe the British people are better than that then we should take the path of exposing the lies of the Tories, exposing the people who slavishly support them in the press (what has gone on at NewsUK this week is so brazen that you have to shake your head in admiration) and educating them on what benefits a more left-wing approach would bring to them in their lives....not an 'aspiration' of a dream existence in 20 years - but the reality of now and the immediate future. Aspiration as defined by the Tories and coming from the US is aspiration based on nothing but a mythical world we would all like to live in.....but none will ever do so

The easy option is just to move further to the right and not take this challenge on

The Labour Party in 2015 is far, far tot he right of the one of 1981.....as are the Tories. Even some of Corbyn's policies would be considered loony right wing in the 1980s....shows how far it has gone

It is time (well it was time about 10 years ago) to say enough.....
Depends what you mean.

During his entire political life Corbyn has opposed Nato and proposed UK withdrawal from the EU. The former is part of his consistent anti-western stance, which we see in his equating Putin's invasion of a sovereign country with Nato's acceptance of Poland as a member, his opposition to the intervention in Kosovo, his bracketing of the death of Osama bin Laden with the 9/11 atrocities as 'tragedies' and his willingness to share platforms with some very dubious people, when he would never appear on the same platform as the BNP. It is true that he has downplayed all of this during the campaign, but foreign policy issues are what he has spent the last 32 years as an MP focusing on.

On domestic policy, he is a throwback. So he wants re-nationalsiation, and not just of rail which was re-nationalised in 2002. The re-opening mines remark was revealing as it showed how he wants to re-fight battles lost. The People's QE is, I agree, a new form of barminess. Not even Benn proposed to pay for things by seigniorage as I remember. The £120bn tax gap stuff is straight out of the 'easy solution' Bennite playbook.

So no, Corbyn is what he has always been. A member of the Bennite hard left. He has voted against Labour more often than any other Labour MP, not just overtime but constantly. That is because he has views far to the left of the PLP (which is why only 20 seriously backed him). The hard left needed a standard bearer. Abbott last time, McDonnell before that. none of the others in his faction wanted to stand, and he reluctantly did.

Labour, and the UK, has never seen anything like it before.

I think you're being disingenuous with the re-nationalisation of rail. It is pretty obvious when people talk about this, it's the rolling stock companies people see talking about. This is where people directly pay their money and what is more expensive than most of Europe. It's also what a majority of the public are talking about.

Also the opening of the mines was loaded with a host of caveats, not least efficient carbon capture. He wasn't just going to open them if he was in power.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:03 am

Morning.

Am surprised that, apart from a fleeting criticism of Corbyn, last night's Sky hustings wasn't even mentioned here.

Well, the bad news for some is that the eight thousand voters Sky had plugged in for polling gave it to Corbyn with a win of over 80%. I believe the viewers who voted were not just Labour sympathisers. The worm showing viewer agreement/disagreement was consistently poor for Kendall, but she came out better, at 2nd place, in the 'who won' than Cooper who came last.

The most pleasing thing was that Sky handled it well.
Adam Boulton was pleasant and pretty fair.
The audience, and experts I saw interviewed later seemed people who genuinely had Labour's interests at heart.

If the BBC had run it, the audience would have been composed of UKIPers and Tories with Dimbleby bitching and interupting.

Post by **refitman** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:12 am

yahyah wrote:Morning.

Am surprised that, apart from a fleeting criticism of Corbyn, last night's Sky hustings wasn't even mentioned here.

Well, the bad news for some is that the eight thousand voters Sky had plugged in for polling gave it to Corbyn with a win of over 80%. I believe the viewers who voted were not just Labour sympathisers. The worm showing viewer agreement/disagreement was consistently poor for Kendall, but she came out better, at 2nd place, in the 'who won' than Cooper who came last.

The most pleasing thing was that Sky handled it well.
Adam Boulton was pleasant and pretty fair.
The audience, and experts I saw interviewed later seemed people who genuinely had Labour's interests at heart.

If the BBC had run it, the audience would have been composed of UKIPers and Tories with Dimbleby bitching and interupting.

No Burley? Small mercies.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:21 am

refitman wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:Just following on from last night

Corbyn is a 1981 Bennite?

Are you sure?

Looking at his policies would suggest he is a 80s Tory wet or perhaps a mainstream Thatcherite?

The only left-wing policy coming from that era is the Trident renewal who has less relevance to a 2015 audience and perhaps his NATO skepticism - but then a commitment to spend 2% on defence is not something I am particularly in favour of when everything is being cut and I am not convinced there has been a strategic vision of what we need to defend from future threats - I think Corbyn suggested a SDR. Seems sensible place to start!

If the Labour Party moves further to the right as TE seems to want on the economy and social spending then I am lost to the party.....the party is as far right as it can go with me continuing to support it and any pandering to those further to the right begs the question....how far do we go?

Continuing with this path leads us to the distorted world of the USA where the poorest believe that people being unfathomably rich and having no social security is 'good for them'!

If you believe the British people are better than that then we should take the path of exposing the lies of the Tories, exposing the people who slavishly support them in the press (what has gone on at NewsUK this week is so brazen that you have to shake your head in admiration) and educating them on what benefits a more left-wing approach would bring to them in their lives....not an 'aspiration' of a dream existence in 20 years - but the reality of now and the immediate future. Aspiration as defined by the Tories and coming from the US is aspiration based on nothing but a mythical world we would all like to live in.....but none will ever do so

The easy option is just to move further to the right and not take this challenge on

The Labour Party in 2015 is far, far tot he right of the one of 1981.....as are the Tories. Even some of Corbyn's policies would be considered loony right wing in the 1980s....shows how far it has gone

It is time (well it was time about 10 years ago) to say enough.....
Depends what you mean.

During his entire political life Corbyn has opposed Nato and proposed UK withdrawal from the EU. The former is part of his consistent anti-western stance, which we see in his equating Putin's invasion of a sovereign country with Nato's acceptance of Poland as a member, his opposition to the intervention in Kosovo, his bracketing of the death of Osama bin Laden with the 9/11 atrocities as 'tragedies' and his willingness to share platforms with some very dubious people, when he would never appear on the same platform as the BNP. It is true that he has downplayed all of this during the campaign, but foreign policy issues are what he has spent the last 32 years as an MP focusing on.

On domestic policy, he is a throwback. So he wants re-nationalsiation, and not just of rail which was re-nationalised in 2002. The re-opening mines remark was revealing as it showed how he wants to re-fight battles lost. The People's QE is, I agree, a new form of barminess. Not even Benn proposed to pay for things by seigniorage as I remember. The £120bn tax gap stuff is straight out of the 'easy solution' Bennite playbook.

So no, Corbyn is what he has always been. A member of the Bennite hard left. He has voted against Labour more often than any other Labour MP, not just overtime but constantly. That is because he has views far to the left of the PLP (which is why only 20 seriously backed him). The hard left needed a standard bearer. Abbott last time, McDonnell before that. none of the others in his faction wanted to stand, and he reluctantly did.

Labour, and the UK, has never seen anything like it before.
I think you're being disingenuous with the re-nationalisation of rail. It is pretty obvious when people talk about this, it's the rolling stock companies people see talking about. This is where people directly pay their money and what is more expensive than most of Europe. It's also what a majority of the public are talking about.

Also the opening of the mines was loaded with a host of caveats, not least efficient carbon capture. He wasn't just going to open them if he was in power.

Railrtrack went bust and all the infrastructure was renationalised in 2002. All the investors who paid shares for the privatised British Rail lost all their money.

The proximate cause (although this was a symptom) was Hatfield. The UK rail network had suffered decades of underinvestment: almost all of that since nationalisation. This is a well recognised phenomenon. Nationalised industries underinvest. Now that is not a necessary phenomenon - but it is an observable one overtime in many different times and places. railtrack just couldn't afford the cost, and so it was taken back by the State.

the 2002 system works well. There is no good reason to think that re-nationalising itself will lower fares. Fare levels are determined in the UK by level of subsidy by government. We should be cutting this to zero. Subsidising rail travel is both regressive and an environmental cost (yes rail is greener than road, but only in the same way burning gas is greener than burning coal). We could tinker at the edges (eg make sure franchises are not too long, allow network rail to bid) but that is it.

The highest fares in Europe claim is often made but is very doubtful

http://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-train-f ... elEkhFVhBc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It comes in part because UK rail firms operate on a commercial basis in the same way airlines do, when nationalised companies often dont. A good thing too.

We have higher infrastructure costs than say France. Running a rail line through for hundred miles through say Limousin is just a lot cheaper and easier to do than in the south east of England. We live in a small country and most choose to live in only a small area of it. We have also, quite rightly, cut subsidies. Nice for me to be subsidised by cheap rail fares in continental Europe, as I have been this summer and last, not so good for taxpayers.

It is, and I think you hint at this, a problem of perception. Which is why Burnham proposes standardising the livery (whilst leaving everything else in place).

There are good candidates for re-nationalisation - the best being water. Rail is the worst. It is one of the paradoxes of life that rail is the one politicians keep focusing on

[Edited to add - actually on reflection Thomas Cook is probably the worst.]

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:21 am

refitman wrote:
yahyah wrote:Morning.

Am surprised that, apart from a fleeting criticism of Corbyn, last night's Sky hustings wasn't even mentioned here.

Well, the bad news for some is that the eight thousand voters Sky had plugged in for polling gave it to Corbyn with a win of over 80%. I believe the viewers who voted were not just Labour sympathisers. The worm showing viewer agreement/disagreement was consistently poor for Kendall, but she came out better, at 2nd place, in the 'who won' than Cooper who came last.

The most pleasing thing was that Sky handled it well.
Adam Boulton was pleasant and pretty fair.
The audience, and experts I saw interviewed later seemed people who genuinely had Labour's interests at heart.

If the BBC had run it, the audience would have been composed of UKIPers and Tories with Dimbleby bitching and interupting.
No Burley? Small mercies.

Burley was in charge of the bit before/build-up, the bit in the middle/interval, and the bit afterwards/recap and analysis - I took the opportunities to make cups of tea and catch up on the posts and link, here, that I'd missed during the afternoon.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:22 am

Burley did the after debate interviews, and again she seemed quite normal.
All the experts were very young though, apart from a woman who looked in her 50's.

Furthering my nostalgia trip, remember the old days when some of the political commentators were real big beasts ? Now it seems anyone who got a B in politics A level.

Also, the studio audience were particularly clappy for Corbyn.
Must've been a bus load of Militant infiltrators

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:27 am

My husband zapped out most of the Burley bits, the joys of recorded TV.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:39 am

Sky's (eight thousand I think) viewers poll.

Who won ?
81% Jeremy Corbyn
9% Liz Kendall
6% YvetteCooper
5% Andy Burnham

Some others have the figure as high as 88.3% and the polling numbers 500,000 which seems odd, but if they were using some Sky box system that may be possible.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:39 am

A useful link when people shout betrayal when others say they'd prefer not to join the shadow cabinet

https://www.politicshome.com/party-poli ... ine-return" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:41 am

Will go now, as puzzled why this site, where we share so much buzz about debates and polls etc, seems so totally disinterested in last night.

Post by **refitman** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:42 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
refitman wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: Depends what you mean.

During his entire political life Corbyn has opposed Nato and proposed UK withdrawal from the EU. The former is part of his consistent anti-western stance, which we see in his equating Putin's invasion of a sovereign country with Nato's acceptance of Poland as a member, his opposition to the intervention in Kosovo, his bracketing of the death of Osama bin Laden with the 9/11 atrocities as 'tragedies' and his willingness to share platforms with some very dubious people, when he would never appear on the same platform as the BNP. It is true that he has downplayed all of this during the campaign, but foreign policy issues are what he has spent the last 32 years as an MP focusing on.

On domestic policy, he is a throwback. So he wants re-nationalsiation, and not just of rail which was re-nationalised in 2002. The re-opening mines remark was revealing as it showed how he wants to re-fight battles lost. The People's QE is, I agree, a new form of barminess. Not even Benn proposed to pay for things by seigniorage as I remember. The £120bn tax gap stuff is straight out of the 'easy solution' Bennite playbook.

So no, Corbyn is what he has always been. A member of the Bennite hard left. He has voted against Labour more often than any other Labour MP, not just overtime but constantly. That is because he has views far to the left of the PLP (which is why only 20 seriously backed him). The hard left needed a standard bearer. Abbott last time, McDonnell before that. none of the others in his faction wanted to stand, and he reluctantly did.

Labour, and the UK, has never seen anything like it before.
I think you're being disingenuous with the re-nationalisation of rail. It is pretty obvious when people talk about this, it's the rolling stock companies people see talking about. This is where people directly pay their money and what is more expensive than most of Europe. It's also what a majority of the public are talking about.

Also the opening of the mines was loaded with a host of caveats, not least efficient carbon capture. He wasn't just going to open them if he was in power.
Railrtrack went bust and all the infrastructure was renationalised in 2002. All the investors who paid shares for the privatised British Rail lost all their money.

The proximate cause (although this was a symptom) was Hatfield. The UK rail network had suffered decades of underinvestment: almost all of that since nationalisation. This is a well recognised phenomenon. Nationalised industries underinvest. Now that is not a necessary phenomenon - but it is an observable one overtime in many different times and places. railtrack just couldn't afford the cost, and so it was taken back by the State.

the 2002 system works well. There is no good reason to think that re-nationalising itself will lower fares. Fare levels are determined in the UK by level of subsidy by government. We should be cutting this to zero. Subsidising rail travel is both regressive and an environmental cost (yes rail is greener than road, but only in the same way burning gas is greener than burning coal). We could tinker at the edges (eg make sure franchises are not too long, allow network rail to bid) but that is it.

The highest fares in Europe claim is often made but is very doubtful

http://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-train-f ... elEkhFVhBc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It comes in part because UK rail firms operate on a commercial basis in the same way airlines do, when nationalised companies often dont. A good thing too.

We have higher infrastructure costs than say France. Running a rail line through for hundred miles through say Limousin is just a lot cheaper and easier to do than in the south east of England. We live in a small country and most choose to live in only a small area of it. We have also, quite rightly, cut subsidies. Nice for me to be subsidised by cheap rail fares in continental Europe, as I have been this summer and last, not so good for taxpayers.

It is, and I think you hint at this, a problem of perception. Which is why Burnham proposes standardising the livery (whilst leaving everything else in place).

There are good candidates for re-nationalisation - the best being water. Rail is the worst. It is one of the paradoxes of life that rail is the one politicians keep focusing on

[Edited to add - actually on reflection Thomas Cook is probably the worst.]

Rail is a natural monopoly, air travel is not. That is not a good comparison to make.

East Coast - brought back into public ownership, reduced costs to the government and the users and record satisfaction levels. We pay more in subsidies now that we did running the thing, before Major cut investment.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:43 am

I raise my morning cuppa to celebrate the life of Mrs. HindleA, an amazing lady who brought so much love and joy to her beloved husband, our very own @HindleA, and who was still acting as a volunteer right up until the end. Let's also send congratulations and best wishes to Mrs. HindleA Senior on the occasion of her 90th Birthday with hopes that her future birthdays will be at times of celebrating new births and other joys.
@HindleA: May the day bring you love, laughter, and only enough tears to water your good heart. Wish there was a Viking Ship and Benny Hill, mind

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:46 am

SpinningHugo wrote: Railrtrack went bust and all the infrastructure was renationalised in 2002. All the investors who paid shares for the privatised British Rail lost all their money.

The proximate cause (although this was a symptom) was Hatfield. The UK rail network had suffered decades of underinvestment: almost all of that since nationalisation. This is a well recognised phenomenon. Nationalised industries underinvest. Now that is not a necessary phenomenon - but it is an observable one overtime in many different times and places. railtrack just couldn't afford the cost, and so it was taken back by the State.

the 2002 system works well. There is no good reason to think that re-nationalising itself will lower fares. Fare levels are determined in the UK by level of subsidy by government. We should be cutting this to zero. Subsidising rail travel is both regressive and an environmental cost (yes rail is greener than road, but only in the same way burning gas is greener than burning coal). We could tinker at the edges (eg make sure franchises are not too long, allow network rail to bid) but that is it.

The highest fares in Europe claim is often made but is very doubtful

http://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-train-f ... elEkhFVhBc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It comes in part because UK rail firms operate on a commercial basis in the same way airlines do, when nationalised companies often dont. A good thing too.

We have higher infrastructure costs than say France. Running a rail line through for hundred miles through say Limousin is just a lot cheaper and easier to do than in the south east of England. We live in a small country and most choose to live in only a small area of it. We have also, quite rightly, cut subsidies. Nice for me to be subsidised by cheap rail fares in continental Europe, as I have been this summer and last, not so good for taxpayers.

It is, and I think you hint at this, a problem of perception. Which is why Burnham proposes standardising the livery (whilst leaving everything else in place).

There are good candidates for re-nationalisation - the best being water. Rail is the worst. It is one of the paradoxes of life that rail is the one politicians keep focusing on

Can't agree about Railtrack. Firstly it was listed on LSE, therefore if people chose to buy shares then I'm afraid its tough shit if the company goes bust.
Secondly you state that there is "no good reason to think that re-nationalising itself will lower fares". As I'm sure you recall, the (private) East Coast franchise went bust & had to be rescued by the Government. Whilst I can't find any information about East Coast Mainline fares at the time, the customer satisfaction with this franchise was the highest on the network. Since it has been reprivatised there have been a number of complaints about fare increases, primarily in the restriction of the cheap "advance" fares,
Lastly, re the site you link to - surely by just comparing 1 journey in UK with what may be considered similar journeys in Europe is such a statistical insignificance that it can't be taken seriously. What criteria were used to chose London - Sheffield rather than other journeys?

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:50 am

danesclose wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: Railrtrack went bust and all the infrastructure was renationalised in 2002. All the investors who paid shares for the privatised British Rail lost all their money.

The proximate cause (although this was a symptom) was Hatfield. The UK rail network had suffered decades of underinvestment: almost all of that since nationalisation. This is a well recognised phenomenon. Nationalised industries underinvest. Now that is not a necessary phenomenon - but it is an observable one overtime in many different times and places. railtrack just couldn't afford the cost, and so it was taken back by the State.

the 2002 system works well. There is no good reason to think that re-nationalising itself will lower fares. Fare levels are determined in the UK by level of subsidy by government. We should be cutting this to zero. Subsidising rail travel is both regressive and an environmental cost (yes rail is greener than road, but only in the same way burning gas is greener than burning coal). We could tinker at the edges (eg make sure franchises are not too long, allow network rail to bid) but that is it.

The highest fares in Europe claim is often made but is very doubtful

http://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-train-f ... elEkhFVhBc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It comes in part because UK rail firms operate on a commercial basis in the same way airlines do, when nationalised companies often dont. A good thing too.

We have higher infrastructure costs than say France. Running a rail line through for hundred miles through say Limousin is just a lot cheaper and easier to do than in the south east of England. We live in a small country and most choose to live in only a small area of it. We have also, quite rightly, cut subsidies. Nice for me to be subsidised by cheap rail fares in continental Europe, as I have been this summer and last, not so good for taxpayers.

It is, and I think you hint at this, a problem of perception. Which is why Burnham proposes standardising the livery (whilst leaving everything else in place).

There are good candidates for re-nationalisation - the best being water. Rail is the worst. It is one of the paradoxes of life that rail is the one politicians keep focusing on
Can't agree about Railtrack. Firstly it was listed on LSE, therefore if people chose to buy shares then I'm afraid its tough shit if the company goes bust.
Secondly you state that there is "no good reason to think that re-nationalising itself will lower fares". As I'm sure you recall, the (private) East Coast franchise went bust & had to be rescued by the Government. Whilst I can't find any information about East Coast Mainline fares at the time, the customer satisfaction with this franchise was the highest on the network. Since it has been reprivatised there have been a number of complaints about fare increases, primarily in the restriction of the cheap "advance" fares,
Lastly, re the site you link to - surely by just comparing 1 journey in UK with what may be considered similar journeys in Europe is such a statistical insignificance that it can't be taken seriously. What criteria were used to chose London - Sheffield rather than other journeys?

Apologies - forgot to say also the comparison between SE England & Limousin is nonsense. Would be more sensible to compare SE England with Ile de France

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:53 am

refitman wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
refitman wrote: I think you're being disingenuous with the re-nationalisation of rail. It is pretty obvious when people talk about this, it's the rolling stock companies people see talking about. This is where people directly pay their money and what is more expensive than most of Europe. It's also what a majority of the public are talking about.

Also the opening of the mines was loaded with a host of caveats, not least efficient carbon capture. He wasn't just going to open them if he was in power.
Railrtrack went bust and all the infrastructure was renationalised in 2002. All the investors who paid shares for the privatised British Rail lost all their money.

The proximate cause (although this was a symptom) was Hatfield. The UK rail network had suffered decades of underinvestment: almost all of that since nationalisation. This is a well recognised phenomenon. Nationalised industries underinvest. Now that is not a necessary phenomenon - but it is an observable one overtime in many different times and places. railtrack just couldn't afford the cost, and so it was taken back by the State.

the 2002 system works well. There is no good reason to think that re-nationalising itself will lower fares. Fare levels are determined in the UK by level of subsidy by government. We should be cutting this to zero. Subsidising rail travel is both regressive and an environmental cost (yes rail is greener than road, but only in the same way burning gas is greener than burning coal). We could tinker at the edges (eg make sure franchises are not too long, allow network rail to bid) but that is it.

The highest fares in Europe claim is often made but is very doubtful

http://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-train-f ... elEkhFVhBc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It comes in part because UK rail firms operate on a commercial basis in the same way airlines do, when nationalised companies often dont. A good thing too.

We have higher infrastructure costs than say France. Running a rail line through for hundred miles through say Limousin is just a lot cheaper and easier to do than in the south east of England. We live in a small country and most choose to live in only a small area of it. We have also, quite rightly, cut subsidies. Nice for me to be subsidised by cheap rail fares in continental Europe, as I have been this summer and last, not so good for taxpayers.

It is, and I think you hint at this, a problem of perception. Which is why Burnham proposes standardising the livery (whilst leaving everything else in place).

There are good candidates for re-nationalisation - the best being water. Rail is the worst. It is one of the paradoxes of life that rail is the one politicians keep focusing on

[Edited to add - actually on reflection Thomas Cook is probably the worst.]
Rail is a natural monopoly, air travel is not. That is not a good comparison to make.

East Coast - brought back into public ownership, reduced costs to the government and the users and record satisfaction levels. We pay more in subsidies now that we did running the thing, before Major cut investment.

And that is why the competition occurs at the franchise level: not the level of the customer.

I don't accept that East Coast reduced cost to the government, no. That just ignores how much we earn from franchising it. The bidder for that franchsie has to at least match the government's return from running it: as the government said at the time.

We need to cut subsidies, and that means fares going up. There is no other option, unless we want the infrastructure to go back to rotting for decades.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:53 am

yahyah wrote:Morning.

Am surprised that, apart from a fleeting criticism of Corbyn, last night's Sky hustings wasn't even mentioned here.

Well, the bad news for some is that the eight thousand voters Sky had plugged in for polling gave it to Corbyn with a win of over 80%. I believe the viewers who voted were not just Labour sympathisers. The worm showing viewer agreement/disagreement was consistently poor for Kendall, but she came out better, at 2nd place, in the 'who won' than Cooper who came last.

The most pleasing thing was that Sky handled it well.
Adam Boulton was pleasant and pretty fair.
The audience, and experts I saw interviewed later seemed people who genuinely had Labour's interests at heart.

If the BBC had run it, the audience would have been composed of UKIPers and Tories with Dimbleby bitching and interupting.

That's interesting to hear yahyah. I'm supposing that you actually watched it. We don't have Sky so I read the G live blog and the various commentator streams. They, commentators, acknowledged the audience and social media support for Corbyn but mostly seemed to be saying that in their opinion Cooper had performed best. I don't know how the Sky pulse / voting thing works - if the voters are self selecting or are selected in some way. But given the numbers 500,000+ - surely their views can't be dismissed that easily. We seem to have laid bare a pretty huge divide between many of those involved at a grassroots level and the media, political commentators and apparatchiks, and parliamentary bods.

Post by **refitman** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:57 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
refitman wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: Railrtrack went bust and all the infrastructure was renationalised in 2002. All the investors who paid shares for the privatised British Rail lost all their money.

The proximate cause (although this was a symptom) was Hatfield. The UK rail network had suffered decades of underinvestment: almost all of that since nationalisation. This is a well recognised phenomenon. Nationalised industries underinvest. Now that is not a necessary phenomenon - but it is an observable one overtime in many different times and places. railtrack just couldn't afford the cost, and so it was taken back by the State.

the 2002 system works well. There is no good reason to think that re-nationalising itself will lower fares. Fare levels are determined in the UK by level of subsidy by government. We should be cutting this to zero. Subsidising rail travel is both regressive and an environmental cost (yes rail is greener than road, but only in the same way burning gas is greener than burning coal). We could tinker at the edges (eg make sure franchises are not too long, allow network rail to bid) but that is it.

The highest fares in Europe claim is often made but is very doubtful

http://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-train-f ... elEkhFVhBc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It comes in part because UK rail firms operate on a commercial basis in the same way airlines do, when nationalised companies often dont. A good thing too.

We have higher infrastructure costs than say France. Running a rail line through for hundred miles through say Limousin is just a lot cheaper and easier to do than in the south east of England. We live in a small country and most choose to live in only a small area of it. We have also, quite rightly, cut subsidies. Nice for me to be subsidised by cheap rail fares in continental Europe, as I have been this summer and last, not so good for taxpayers.

It is, and I think you hint at this, a problem of perception. Which is why Burnham proposes standardising the livery (whilst leaving everything else in place).

There are good candidates for re-nationalisation - the best being water. Rail is the worst. It is one of the paradoxes of life that rail is the one politicians keep focusing on

[Edited to add - actually on reflection Thomas Cook is probably the worst.]
Rail is a natural monopoly, air travel is not. That is not a good comparison to make.

East Coast - brought back into public ownership, reduced costs to the government and the users and record satisfaction levels. We pay more in subsidies now that we did running the thing, before Major cut investment.

And that is why the competition occurs at the franchise level: not the level of the customer.

I don't accept that East Coast reduced cost to the government, no. That just ignores how much we earn from franchising it. The bidder for that franchsie has to at least match the government's return from running it: as the government said at the time.

We need to cut subsidies, and that means fares going up. There is no other option, unless we want the infrastructure to go back to rotting for decades.

Why would that happen?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 8:58 am

danesclose wrote:
Can't agree about Railtrack. Firstly it was listed on LSE, therefore if people chose to buy shares then I'm afraid its tough shit if the company goes bust.

Absolutely: it was tough shit. Everyone who owned shares lost their money: that is capitalism. The state pocketed the money it received from privatising rail, and then never paid it back when it re-nationalised. Good- that was their commercial risk.

danesclose wrote: Secondly you state that there is "no good reason to think that re-nationalising itself will lower fares". As I'm sure you recall, the (private) East Coast franchise went bust & had to be rescued by the Government. Whilst I can't find any information about East Coast Mainline fares at the time, the customer satisfaction with this franchise was the highest on the network. Since it has been reprivatised there have been a number of complaints about fare increases, primarily in the restriction of the cheap "advance" fares,
Lastly, re the site you link to - surely by just comparing 1 journey in UK with what may be considered similar journeys in Europe is such a statistical insignificance that it can't be taken seriously. What criteria were used to chose London - Sheffield rather than other journeys?

Again, if a company goes bust their owners are the ones who lose out. When it was re-franchised the company had to beat the return to the government from the government running it. Good - that is the way it is supposed to work. A system set up by John Prescott in 2002 that works. It is supposed to operate in the way best for *everyone* not just those who use that particular bit of the rail network.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 9:02 am

refitman wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
refitman wrote: Rail is a natural monopoly, air travel is not. That is not a good comparison to make.

East Coast - brought back into public ownership, reduced costs to the government and the users and record satisfaction levels. We pay more in subsidies now that we did running the thing, before Major cut investment.

And that is why the competition occurs at the franchise level: not the level of the customer.

I don't accept that East Coast reduced cost to the government, no. That just ignores how much we earn from franchising it. The bidder for that franchsie has to at least match the government's return from running it: as the government said at the time.

We need to cut subsidies, and that means fares going up. There is no other option, unless we want the infrastructure to go back to rotting for decades.
Why would that happen?

because it has to be paid for somehow. Either the user pays or the state does. The former is better. Because

1. It is fairer as not regressive. (The left should not get itself into the position of arguing for regressive policies.)

2. it is greener, and discourages perverse incentives

3. If the State pays we know from decades of experience that under budgetary constraints it is always tempted to skimp.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 9:03 am

yahyah wrote:Sky's (eight thousand I think) viewers poll.

Who won ?
81% Jeremy Corbyn
9% Liz Kendall
6% YvetteCooper
5% Andy Burnham

Some others have the figure as high as 88.3% and the polling numbers 500,000 which seems odd, but if they were using some Sky box system that may be possible.

Their app let people vote every five seconds on how the debate was going, from which they created the 'worm' thingy. Perhaps that's where the 500,000 number came from.

Re people not seeming interested. I watched the debate live but needed to sort-of let it settle before commenting, hence talking about it now rather than last night. Have to admit I'm quite surprised that their polling (from the app/website) put Jeremy Corbyn so very far ahead and Andy Burnhan so far behind that he came last. Burnham got almost as enthusiastic applause on many of his answers as Corbyn did. Kendall came across more relaxed and confident than I've seen her - Cooper tore into Corbyn on his PQE and Infrastructure investment bank plans over whether or not he thought the government would ever have to pay the money back but I thought her argument got a bit lost in her ferocity.

I'm still planning to put Burnham first.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 9:21 am

I know someone (yahyah I think) posted a link to this yesterday but I've only just watched it. That is one serious bloke. I hope he's had some really good legal advice - and has got good protection lined up.

Chris Bryant MP retweeted
Hugh Grant ‏@HackedOffHugh 9h9 hours ago
Rebekah Brooks ex security chief announces on YouTube intention to spill beans " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 9:29 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Again, if a company goes bust their owners are the ones who lose out. When it was re-franchised the company had to beat the return to the government from the government running it. Good - that is the way it is supposed to work. A system set up by John Prescott in 2002 that works. It is supposed to operate in the way best for *everyone* not just those who use that particular bit of the rail network.
If a company providing public services goes bust, it is almost always the state that loses out because it has to pick up the pieces. Moreover, the companies tend to bail before going bust. During my last spell with NHS England we had private contractors pulling out of contracts left, right and centre, and it cost money to plug the gap.

Rail users are a captive audience. There is no meaningful competition. It is to all intents and purposes a monopoly. Trains have to run on the same rails, after all, unlike aeroplanes. Trying to run it on a commercial basis is not only nuts, it is impossible. And rail fares are too high. Together with high property prices, they are pricing a lot of people out of the places that the jobs are. It's good for the country to subsidise rail travel, and on the basis that it makes no sense to subsidise profit-making companies to run a monopoly service on publicly owned rails, full public ownership is the best and only option.

1. Not true of railtrack though. We pocketed the money from privatising it, and renationalised for nothing.

2. Again, the competition occurs at the franchise level.

3. Rail fares are too low: as reflected in the fact we taxpayers spend £4bn subsidising them. This subsidy needs to be cut, and that ineveitably means fare increases

4. It makes no more sense to subsidise rail than road or air. This is regressive, and causes environmental damage.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 9:29 am

more pandering to Tory rightwing agenda

http://waitingfortax.com/2015/09/03/jer ... ensioners/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By Corbyn.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 9:31 am

@rr2: I meant to post yesterday, but had other things on my mind, that you can watch the Sky News channel on Freeview channel 132 or online at http://news.sky.com/watch-live - and that's the channel they broadcast the debate on, not one of their subscription/satellite channels. Sorry about that.

Also, good luck to Wales in tonight's footie match because if they win they'll be going to the World Cup Finals for the first year since 1958 - a very good year, even if I say it myself

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 9:35 am

LadyCentauria wrote:@rr2: I meant to post yesterday, but had other things on my mind, that you can watch the Sky News channel on Freeview channel 132 or online at http://news.sky.com/watch-live - and that's the channel they broadcast the debate on, not one of their subscription/satellite channels. Sorry about that.

Also, good luck to Wales in tonight's footie match because if they win they'll be going to the World Cup Finals for the first year since 1958 - a very good year, even if I say it myself

Ah thanks for that Lady C - if a bit late! We would have had to try and watch online - we can only receive a TV signal through satellite and the FreeSat equivalent of Freeview doesn't give you Sky News .... funny that. Assume it's because Sky owns / controls the satellite bit.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 9:38 am

Hugo. If you think rail fares are too low we are obviously living in a different country. We have been priced off the railway. For anyone on a low or median income they are too expensive. And, as several articles have recently reported, bus services are disappearing faster than they run.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 9:54 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Hugo. If you think rail fares are too low we are obviously living in a different country. We have been priced off the railway. For anyone on a low or median income they are too expensive. And, as several articles have recently reported, bus services are disappearing faster than they run.

The system is broken, subsidies are huge, rail fares at peak times are stupid. I doubt that nationalising stuff is going to help, might save 10-15%.

However if you shut down the rail network the country would just stop. Huge numbers of high skilled commuters are travelling long distance into London every day, I go at least once a week and I don't even work there.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 10:01 am

@SpinningHigo

I went from Udine to Rome via Venezia Mestre last November - the second leg was 1st class. Cost €128 - about £115. The difference between standard and first class is about €27.

Just checked a comparable journey London - Glasgow today. Cheapest standard class is £132.80. First class is £239

So you're looking at £82 against £132 standard, and £115 against £232 first class.

Rail fares in this country are not cheap - far from it.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 10:27 am

Just received. I'm impressed. The only candidate - for either leader or deputy who has addressed my number one concern.

Dear ....

Issues for rural communities are often forgotten in debates both within the Labour Party and wider British political discourse.

I was born and grew up in rural communities, and if I am elected leader I will ensure that Labour is as much a party in the communities like the one in which I was born, as it is for people in inner city constituencies like the one I represent.

We cannot write off rural areas as “the Tory shires”, abandoning communities struggling with issues such as housing costs, public service cuts and social exclusion just as those in inner cities are. Under my leadership, no part of Britain will be written off as a no-go area for our party.

With the collapse of the Liberal Democrat vote at the 2015 election, Labour is now the second placed party in many more rural seats. With the influx of new members and supporters, we have the potential to build vibrant local parties in areas where for too long our party has not been heard enough.

So I want to hear your voice now, so that we have the right priorities to win people to Labour right across the country.

Fill in Jeremy's Rural Renewal questionnaire

Once you have completed the questionnaire please share the link with friends, family and all colleagues who may also be interested and keen to contribute: http://goo.gl/forms/XF2W0amNOc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you in advance

Jeremy Corbyn MP

Sorry for all those here who don't like Corbyn's policies / approach. But this really matters to me.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 10:27 am

Well for all the long posts made by Hugo he seems to miss the point I am making.

In the 1980s there was very little privatized but since then the Government has privatized a whole lot of monopolies and strategically important industries. Also many outsourcing projects to Crapita and the like creating quasi-Governmental organizations. The focus is always on cost (based it seems mainly on cutting staff cost) without very much care on the quality of work provided

I have not seen Corbyn saying everything should be nationalized but I can reel of at least 20 privitized organizations or functions that should never have been sold off and should be brought back under state control (what control means can differ)

The privatization project was a massive move to the right and has actually been very bad. We should, as a party, quite clearly say why certain organizations should not be under private control, and say that we should endeavor to do so where possible understanding that it is may not happen because of the cost. That very cost demonstrating the value lost to the Government and given to the private sector to milk

We should also make clear that the 'private' in a lot of cases actually means foreign Government companies, including China and Qatar. Public ownership seems only to be an issue if it is British public ownership

Corbyn is of the left but is he really arguing the same as in 1980? I have seen nothing that suggests he is. In fact he is right to raise questions about battles that have been lost....the winner of battles is not based on being right!

If people on hear believe that in the unchallenging acceptance of nuclear arms, the continued acceptance of trade union laws, the acceptance of Osbornomics, the acceptance of low spending and low taxation, the acceptance of all privatizations and the need to move further to pander to Tory voters then the are über Thatcherite despite what they say and have no place in any Labour Party worthy of the name

Corbyn has said nothing that would not have been considered mainstream Labour in the run up to the elections in the 90s. Reading some of the comments here makes me wonder what you would have called John Smith or Blair when he first too over?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 10:28 am

Cefalu to Palermo (67km) last September - €5.15 - approx £4

Chelmsford to London Liverpool St (63km) today - £15.10

Was there a comment about roads or air not being subsidized? We don't pay nearly enough to travel on the roads and air fuel has no duty on it IIRC.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 10:29 am

354,000+ signatures on the petition to accept more asylum seekers and increase support for refugee migrants in the UK.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 10:35 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:@SpinningHigo

I went from Udine to Rome via Venezia Mestre last November - the second leg was 1st class. Cost €128 - about £115. The difference between standard and first class is about €27.

Just checked a comparable journey London - Glasgow today. Cheapest standard class is £132.80. First class is £239

So you're looking at £82 against £132 standard, and £115 against £232 first class.

Rail fares in this country are not cheap - far from it.

Lucky you, subsidised by Italian taxpayers. As I say, same thing has happened to me across Europe both this summer and last. Nice to have someone else pay for me.

Also, you can do better than that Glasgow price, I just had a look on trainline.com, and if you book in advance you can get it for around £92 (£46 each way). That is part of how ticket pricing in the UK is done on an 'easyjet' commercial basis: and often isn't on continental Europe. Trying to pay on the day of travel, and a Friday, is more expensive.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 10:40 am

Interesting comments in the Ofsted inspection of an academy which was Good on conversion i.e. it is stand-alone but now Inadequate and in special measures.

Meetings were held with the joint acting headteachers, senior and middle leaders who hold specific responsibilities and with the Chair of the Governing Body. Separate meetings were also held with the safer police school officer and three representatives from Havering local authority. These included the local authority designated officer (LADO), the school improvement adviser, and the quality assurance senior inspector

There is not a methodical approach to updating and organising records of staff checks. Policies on protecting students have not been fully revised or ratified and are, therefore, still not fit for purpose. This is despite clear advice given by Havering local authority.

Havering local authority has started to work with the academy to challenge its work on students’ performance, but this work is quite recent.

Getting away from that iron grip of the local authority that used to run (sic) the school seems to be working out just fine then...

Edit - also I note that the long-serving HT retired and was replaced in Jan 2012. Conversion to an academy was in April 2011. Given how long it takes to recruit a HT should they have let be converted to academy status knowing that the HT was retiring? I'd say no.

Edit II - no mention of the Regional Commissioner? But I thought they were fully in control of all academies now - surely this one didn't fall through the net?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 10:44 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: 1. Not true of railtrack though. We pocketed the money from privatising it, and renationalised for nothing.
So why not renationalise everything if it worked so well with Railtrack? The current system is vulnerable to contractors pulling out or going bust. Railtrack is less comparable to franchise holders than private service contractors in the NHS.

SpinningHugo wrote:2. Again, the competition occurs at the franchise level.
Not very well, it doesn't. The passenger gets no say and no choice for the length of the contract.

SpinningHugo wrote:3. Rail fares are too low: as reflected in the fact we taxpayers spend £4bn subsidising them. This subsidy needs to be cut, and that ineveitably means fare increases
If you think rail fares are too low then you obviously don't use the railways or are very, very wealthy. Either makes me inclined to regard you as a poor authority on the subject. 'Cloud cuckoo land' wouldn't be putting it too mildly. Neither would 'Hugo talks utter bollocks yet again'.

SpinningHugo wrote:4. It makes no more sense to subsidise rail than road or air. This is regressive, and causes environmental damage.
Christmas is bad for whales. The sky is made of tungsten. See, I can make unsupported sweeping statements as if they were fact too. Your assertions are nonsensical. Pricing people off the railways adds to carbon-heavy road traffic. It's not regressive because promoting wider use of the rail network is good for everyone and the environment. Rail travel is, according to a minister in the last government, a 'rich man's toy'. How on earth you think making rail travel cheaper and accessible to more people is regressive I simply can't fathom.

1. Because other things don't work in the same way. You can't franchise electricity generation, for obvious reasons.

2. It isn't perfect. Just better than any other alternative.

3. Price is below cost. That is too low.

4. Incentivising travel causes environmental damage. It is less damaging to travel by rail than by car, but only in the same way burning gas is less bad than burning coal.

5. it is regressive because of who uses rail the most. The heaviest users, and the most subsidised, are commuters in the south east. They are disproportionately the wealthiest. Giving them a subsidy out of general taxation is regressive.

The same is true of 'free' University education. if the state pays for this out of general taxation it gives a benefit disprorportionately to the children of the rich, and the people who will be rich. The fact that some poorer people also benefit doesn't stop its overall impact from being deeply regressive.

People should pay the full cost of things, and we should help the poorest by giving them money. We need to get away from these subsidies for the rich middle classes.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 10:48 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Cefalu to Palermo (67km) last September - €5.15 - approx £4

Chelmsford to London Liverpool St (63km) today - £15.10

Was there a comment about roads or air not being subsidized? We don't pay nearly enough to travel on the roads and air fuel has no duty on it IIRC.

Agree with the last two points.

Now that the technology is there (ie we don't need tolls see the London congestion charge) we need to introduce road pricing. Users should pay.

The fact that there are other bad subsidies doesn't make subsidising rail better.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 10:57 am

yahyah wrote:Will go now, as puzzled why this site, where we share so much buzz about debates and polls etc, seems so totally disinterested in last night.

Tbh I think its just Labour leadership fatigue - most people, even a political obsessive like myself, just want the thing to be over

Oh, and its "*un*interested", as any grammar pedant would tell you. *Dis*interested is one thing this site certainly ain't, whatever its current mood

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 11:06 am

RobertSnozers wrote:Sorry, but shutting out anyone below a certain wealth point from rail travel is not progressive. Subsidising rail travel is no more regressive than providing council houses to whoever wants them as we used to. It's a social good. And I really object if you're going to start redefining terms like this.

Council housing is another good example of things the state should not be doing.

Look at central London and the people on council waiting lists. This heart rending piece by Polly Toynbee is a good example

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/no ... using-trap" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the minimum cost of a 3 bed property in Camden, which is what this family wants, is £550,000. Minimum. There is no way on earth that the state can pay for enough housing in London and the south east to meet this demand. That means it rations by queuing and other means. That means a lucky few get to possess an asset of huge worth, whilst the majority don't. That creates a terrible distributional injustice. We cant solve that by building more social housing in London - that is quite impossible.

Instead what we should do is remove all state subsidy of housing. No housing benefit, no council housing. Replace that with a guaranteed minimum income for all. Couple this with serious relaxation of the Town and Country Planning Act which was enacted in a different world.

That will, it is true. make it much more expensive to live in or near central London in real terms. Which means if bars want to open there they will have to pay staff more. Similarly the NHS will just have to pay nurses working in Camden far more than those working in Stoke.

The current system just creates terrible unfair distortions. A lucky few are given an asset for free by the state, and the state subsidises the cost of running a bar in the west end by giving people money so that they can live nearby. This makes no sense.

Stop it. Help the poor by giving them money. Much more. We need to move towards a guaranteed minimum income for all and away from state subsidies that are either regressive or benefit a lucky minority.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 11:08 am

The thing that really annoys me about the current lot of DfE ministers (OK one of many) is the hypocrisy.

The rhetoric around coasting schools and not letting pupils spend more than a day more than is necessary in a coasting schools - an LA school found to be requiring improvement will be converted at top speed.

But what of coasting and failing academies?

Grace Academy Solihull

Opened Sept 2006

Nov 2008.....3
Jan 2012.....3
Sept 2013....4
Mar 2015.....3

It's had the same sponsor - the Grace Foundation - since it opened. On their last s.8 which has just been published there's no mention of a change in sponsor in the offing.

Grace's two other schools...one is in special measures and the other requires improvement.

Again, no mention of the Regional Commissioner and the s.8 wasn't even copied into him but it was to the LA. Sign of a broken system.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 11:10 am

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 11:13 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
yahyah wrote:Will go now, as puzzled why this site, where we share so much buzz about debates and polls etc, seems so totally disinterested in last night.
Tbh I think its just Labour leadership fatigue - most people, even a political obsessive like myself, just want the thing to be over

Oh, and its "*un*interested", as any grammar pedant would tell you. *Dis*interested is one thing this site certainly ain't, whatever its current mood

Also I think that, at this stage, there might be a certain element of people who have already cast their vote not daring to look in case their chosen candidate(s) foul up! I know that I fall into that category, given that none of the candidates attracted my wholehearted support and I'm half dreading being terribly wrong in my choice.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 04 Sep, 2015 11:17 am

@AK

Could you delete that post as I doubt if we want to broadcast it just in case someone sees it. You know who I mean...