Politics Thread!

[Dio]

How convenient that is depends on your needs and the services around you. For me the main destination is Newcastle. To get the bus I walk 20 seconds to the bus stop, wait an average of under four minutes in the day for a bus, which takes a straight route into the heart of Newcastle. A car can go by a quicker route without stopping but you spend much more time finding somewhere to park and dealing with congestion in the city.

... huh? You said it takes you an hour and a half to get to the airport - so it must take you at least an hour to get to Newcastle City Centre, since it's a simple 30-minute Metro journey to the airport even including the platform wait for a train.

[pogo]

RE Corbyn views being "dated" - posting a quote of someone who shares your biases IS NOT EVIDENCE.

This article is better, which speaks of Tories satisfaction of UK politics appearing to swing to the right, and their nervousness of Corbyn because he poses a real threat.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... y-fear-him

The New Statesman is great at the moment: viewpoints from every part of the Labour spectrum. But that which I’ve read already is nonsense. His polices just don’t stand up to close inspection. The “people's Quantitative Easing” mentioned is simply turning on the printing presses to pay for his spending. But there’s no such thing as a free lunch and that would have negative consequences for our financial standing, for inflation and so people’s standards of living. There’s a reason the only countries that do it are economic basket cases like Venezuela, Zimbabwe.

His views are dated as many of them seem more suited for earlier era. Nuclear disarmament, renationalisation, they take us back to Clause IV and Labour’s ties to CND from the 1980s. By the 1990s Labour were moving away from such things, a modernisation process that was completed by the election of Blair as Labour leader.

[pogo]

How convenient that is depends on your needs and the services around you. For me the main destination is Newcastle. To get the bus I walk 20 seconds to the bus stop, wait an average of under four minutes in the day for a bus, which takes a straight route into the heart of Newcastle. A car can go by a quicker route without stopping but you spend much more time finding somewhere to park and dealing with congestion in the city.

... huh? You said it takes you an hour and a half to get to the airport - so it must take you at least an hour to get to Newcastle City Centre, since it's a simple 30-minute Metro journey to the airport even including the platform wait for a train.

I tend to allow 40 minutes for both legs of the journey, plus getting from the bus stop to the Metro which is another 5-10 minutes. With luggage usually. So an hour and a half. At less opportune times such as when services are less frequent or it’s congested then it can be more like two. Don’t forget with flying you have to arrive well before the flight. The airport says at least two hours, I tend to think one. But that means I leave home at least 2½ hours before a flight, about the same as the fastest train from Newcastle to London.

[(o)(o)]

His views are dated as many of them seem more suited for earlier era. Nuclear disarmament, renationalisation, they take us back to Clause IV and Labour’s ties to CND from the 1980s.

That article you just cited (did you read it?) shows renationalisation isn't 'suited for an earlier era' - it's what people want implemented TODAY ergo it's "suited for this era"

That doesn't just apply to rail here's that DATA (repeated polls produce a similar outcome) again :



LIVE WITH IT

By the 1990s Labour were moving away from such things, a modernisation process that was completed by the election of Blair as Labour leader.

And by 2015 there was so little Labour left in New Labour there was nothing viable for Labour supporters to vote for. Look north and you'll see socialism isn't a thing of the fucking past, anti-austerity, nuclear disarmament and welfare are modern political policies relevant to human people today.

[pogo]

You are misinterpreting the Scottish result. It was not about socialism, that was and is secondary to nationalism, i.e. most of the 45% who voted for independence voting for the one party that supported it. With first past the post that was enough to give them a landslide. There’s probably little anyone can do to challenge that in the short term. In the long term voters there may tire of the SNP and be open to alternatives but probably not for a few years.

There is very little support for a radical left agenda in England, where Labour need to gain 100 seats to win in 2020. If Labour again try to win from the left they will again lose. They could easily do worse than this time round with UKIP and the LDs happy to exploit any weaknesses they have.

[Dio]

But that means I leave home at least 2½ hours before a flight, about the same as the fastest train from Newcastle to London.

Nearly 3, plus the 40 minutes it takes you to get to Newcastle station... so overall journey time by either method is fairly similar - final transit time in London is as big a factor. Train wins if you're in central London, for sure.

[(o)(o)]

You are misinterpreting the Scottish result.

Whatever with the weasel words I hear Scots routinely saying they want these social policies instead of being controlled by City of London hedge fund managers.

It was just an example anyway but I'm sure if doing away with nukes is such an abhorrent prospect how could anyone bring themselves to vote for that ?

There is very little support for a radical left agenda in England, where Labour need to gain 100 seats to win in 2020.

Opinion stated as fact.

I've posted data on renationalisation - evidence of demand for socialist policies - you just bleat on as if reality has no bearing on your opinion.

Cobryn isn't "radical" .. his arguments employ reasoning and he's welcoming democratic policy making.

Comparatively the Tory party are "extremists" (New Labour aren't much better), they engage in social cleansing and refusing to be transparent about deaths they caused.

If Labour again try to win from the left they will again lose.

Opinion stated as fact put your money where your mouth is.

Give us your odds on a wager of Labour winning under Corbyn.

[tufty]

If Labour again try to win from the left they will again lose.

Or not.

The public aren't completely stupid, they recognise that "New Labour" is merely (not very) watered down Thatcherism, and they're disenchanted enough with the current "status quo" that they might want to try something else. They've already shown they're not stupid enough to vote for the kippers in significant enough numbers, someone who comes up with a radical but not completely barmy agenda might do quite well.

After all, nobody thought the Greeks would elect a radical left party, did they?

[pogo]

The Greek example is a good one. If we go through the sort of economic ruin that Greece has, that successive traditional governments are unable to end, then it could well lead to more fringe/extremist parties being elected. Though here that means UKIP probably.

Labour just can’t win from the left, not in normal times. You don’t need to believe me: how about the last person to win an election for Labour, earlier this year:

Mr Blair says that he fears that the next election, due to take place in May 2015, could be a rerun of those before his ascent to the leadership, which regularly ended in disaster for his party.

The result in 2015, he quips, could well be an election “in which a traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right-wing party, with the traditional result”. Asked if he means a Tory win, Mr Blair confirms: “Yes, that is what happens.” Although Ed Miliband, the current Labour leader, has spoken of a shift in economic thinking since the financial crisis of 2007-08, Mr Blair firmly denies that Britain’s centre ground has shifted. “I see no evidence for that. You could argue that it has moved to the right, not left.” Mr Blair says that the 2010 election (in which David Cameron defeated Mr Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown), was a “classic tax-and-spend election”, and that turned out to the Conservatives’ advantage.

[F-ZeroOne]

Yes, HS2 is going to be transformative in the way no other transport project has since the Channel Tunnel, which was started over 25 years ago.

20 minutes less to Birmingham is hardly transformative especially given how people are more productive on trains than they were in the past. This has undermined the economic argument for HS2 - At least the channel tunnel created a new link to Europe

I wondered when the "speed savings not worth it" one would crop up. This is one aspect where I think the government dropped the ball on HS2s P.R; it never has been solely about speed, its about capacity, reducing the load on existing lines and also building an effectively "fresh start" railway that will then be easier to expand in future. Reduced journey times is something of a bonus, and HS2 isn't planned just to go from London to Birmingham; the longer the distance the HS2 lines go, the greater the effect the higher speeds have on journey times.

Also, its always struck me as a bit of an odd, and possibly old-fashioned argument (I honestly think that if the government had announced that they would be building a network operated entirely by steam trains instead it would have gotten more public approval); the Japanese a couple years back invested in some tilting shinkansen trains - presumably at some expense - in order to shave a whole five minutes off what most people would probably already consider a perfectly adequate journey time.

Regards rail fares - I wonder if the issue isn't exactly the cost of the fares sometimes, but instead the perceived value for money. Japanese friends I've spoken to have remarked that shinkansen fares are "expensive", and are often jealous of the rail pass that I can use as a tourist, but I doubt that they would feel that they don't get value for money from shinkansen tickets...

[(o)(o)]

Labour just can’t win from the left, not in normal times.

You are stating your opinion stated as fact.

AGAIN

Do you understand the difference??



Quoting Blair.. it's a fucking comedy routine innit

[zip accident]

Yes, but imagine if it happened to you. You rent out the family home, perhaps because you are working overseas or even the other end of the country and need the money. And suddenly it is compulsorily purchased from you and you can’t stop it (as the tenant has a right to buy).

You receive a fair price but you still have all the costs and stress of finding and buying a new house, storing your stuff in the interim (if you let it furnished), renting as you look (and you no longer receive rental income). What with all the costs, and our again rising house prices, you won’t be able to afford anything as nice as the house you were turfed out of.

So no, it’s not going to happen to private landlords. An Englishman’s home is his castle and all that. A government messes with that at its peril. Housing associations are regulated and government subsidised organisations, though. Very much subject to whatever laws and policies governments come up with.

Right to buy is a stupid policy. It ought to have been repealed decades ago, indeed it should never have started.

However, if it's fit for publicly owned housing, it's just as fit for privately owned housing. There are many more tenants than landlords, so it will be electorally a net win for whichever party implements it.

[pogo]

Labour just can’t win from the left, not in normal times.

You are stating your opinion stated as fact.

Whenever Labour run from the left they lose, at least since 1945. That is what Blair speaking in January, meant by his prediction about the May election would be one “in which a traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right-wing party, with the traditional result”. Even Miliband was too far to the left to win.

But that means I leave home at least 2½ hours before a flight, about the same as the fastest train from Newcastle to London.

Nearly 3, plus the 40 minutes it takes you to get to Newcastle station... so overall journey time by either method is fairly similar - final transit time in London is as big a factor. Train wins if you're in central London, for sure.

Well if travelling by train I would go by train from here, which is much quicker. Much harder for airport connections as train services are infrequent so rarely match planes which themselves are at odd times, but it’s ideal for catching the train as it’s easy to find times that involve only a short wait. Plus no need to leave the station and you can buy one ticket for the whole journey.

[VNVObit]

I wondered when the "speed savings not worth it" one would crop up. This is one aspect where I think the government dropped the ball on HS2s P.R; it never has been solely about speed, its about capacity, reducing the load on existing lines and also building an effectively "fresh start" railway that will then be easier to expand in future. Reduced journey times is something of a bonus, and HS2 isn't planned just to go from London to Birmingham; the longer the distance the HS2 lines go, the greater the effect the higher speeds have on journey times.

If they were serious about improving the infrastructure beyond links to London then they really should start with those. Can't help feeling they're just trying to extend the commuter belt which is not really good news for the wider economy.

Also, its always struck me as a bit of an odd, and possibly old-fashioned argument (I honestly think that if the government had announced that they would be building a network operated entirely by steam trains instead it would have gotten more public approval); the Japanese a couple years back invested in some tilting shinkansen trains - presumably at some expense - in order to shave a whole five minutes off what most people would probably already consider a perfectly adequate journey time.

Regards rail fares - I wonder if the issue isn't exactly the cost of the fares sometimes, but instead the perceived value for money. Japanese friends I've spoken to have remarked that shinkansen fares are "expensive", and are often jealous of the rail pass that I can use as a tourist, but I doubt that they would feel that they don't get value for money from shinkansen tickets...

But the rationale for investment it is a classic YMMV argument as what may be value for money for one country may not be value for money for another for various reasons.

[(o)(o)]

Labour just can’t win from the left, not in normal times.

You are stating your opinion stated as fact.

Whenever Labour run from the left they lose, at least since 1945.

You are talking in the PAST tense so you should use the appropriate english language wording.

You wrote : "Whenever Labour run from the left they lose, at least since 1945."

It should read : "Whenever Labour HAVE run from the left they HAVE LOST, at least since 1945."

Do you understand the difference between the two sentences?

The one YOU wrote cannot be true and is basically bollocks/a lie.

YOU CANT SEE INTO THE FUTURE. That is because it hasn't happened yet. Right?

Notwithstanding, what a superficial view of history - it is claimed 'New Labours' landslide victories were DUE TO OPPOSITION of the ruling conservative party. If that is correct (and it IS based on analysis by Cox and Lawson) then in all likelihood a lefty Labour would have succeeded anyway. As it is, New Labour was branded as modernisation and not abandonment of socialism what we got was a lot more repugnant than voters (and anti-tory tactical voters) bargained for.