Forum menu
Cheapest is £39 and average is £49 travelling tomorrow
Devil is in the detail. Firstly that's a oneway price not a return. Secondly it's a price based on only a few tickets left as they now use variable pricing. Just had a quick look for Saturday and the prices seem to be around £75 one way on average. There are cheaper ones (£42 one way) but that involves a change at Crewe on to a slower train which lengthens the journey by 1h 20mins. I'm talking about a return fare where you don't have to book weeks in advance or navigate the complexities of variable pricing algorithms via a multitude of apps and special offers. We should be able to rock up to the station (or at the least book it the day before) and get a return ticket for £50 or less. It's simply not possible.
Labour are at least promising that you can get the cheapest possible price at any one time rather than having to search around and have a degree in ticketing policies (presumably by standardising and simplifying ticketing policy across the network), but they've said nothing on what the prices will be, and that will be the proof of the pudding.
We should be able to rock up to the station (or at the least book it the day before) and get a return ticket for £50 or less. It’s simply not possible.
But that's not the case anywhere in Europe either. Despite the fact that Brits like to moan about rail fares, London -Manchester pre-booked for month in advance is about £30.00 (cheapest I found was £8.00) and Paris to Dijon pre-booked was 27 to 49 euros, next day prices £49 and the same French route was 84 Euros on TGV and still 49 Euros on slower routes .
I think you can ask that rail fares are similar to those in Europe (which they broadly are), I think its fantasy to hope that they'll ever be half the price of similar journeys.
I think you can ask that rail fares are similar to those in Europe (which they broadly are)
In which case I'm misinformed because everyone I know who lives in Europe or has used rail services there tells me they're much cheaper than the UK and much more reliable. Are you saying that's not the case?
I think its fantasy to hope that they’ll ever be half the price of similar journeys.
Well then I guess everyone will carry on driving their cars everywhere and we should accept all the environmental destruction that causes. We need (much) cheaper rail travel, and nothing Labour are proposing is offering that.
We need (much) cheaper rail travel,
I agree we need much cheaper travel, and those are [less frequently used] inter-city prices, and commuter travel, I agree with you, need subsiding. I think prices have gone up everywhere haven't they? fuel costs, cost of living, inflation all these things are as true in Europe as they are here. The Railways in Germany (for instance) have having the same sorts of problems we are, strikes (more pay) cancellations, costly journeys etc etc. I think back in October last year DB (German rail) cancelled something like 80% of all intercity rail journeys, was in the news I'm sure.
I think back in October last year DB (German rail) cancelled something like 80% of all intercity rail journeys, was in the news I’m sure.
That might have been the case on strike days, but not for the month as a whole.
IMO we shouldn't be talking about reducing the rail budget as the highest priority for rail travel. We should be talking about big improvements in the rail service to give people more transport choices (whether they be commuting or for social journeys), to contribute to a greener energy future, and to better plan link up so that trains become part of a complimentary transport infrastructure rather than having different transport modes competing against each other.
In Germany they have the Deutschland ticket, which will allow you to travel on all "non high speed trains", trams and buses in Germany for just 49 euros a month.
https://int.bahn.de/en/offers/regional/deutschland-ticket
I agree we need much cheaper travel, and those are [less frequently used] inter-city prices, and commuter travel, I agree with you
TBF the London-Manchester example was just a random one. A better one as you say are commuter prices or regional intercity prices. It's now £14.50 for a peak open return from Todmorden->Manchester, which is a 25 minute journey. Manc -> Leeds is £28.40 and £23.40 Manc -> Liverpool. These are all places which people should be able to commute to and from affordably but these prices make it pretty much impossible for anyone on a normal wage. It's no wonder the M60 and M62 are car parks.
“In Germany they have the Deutschland ticket, which will allow you to travel on all “non high speed trains”, trams and buses in Germany for just 49 euros a month.”
TBF that is a reaction to the fall of rail use after covid/Ukraine, and has been extended from the original 3 month trial at 9 euro. It is a Direct Debit thing where you have to subscribe, but it seems easy enough to cancel if you only want one month. I can see their point, if trains are running only half full, reduce the fares to get them full, revenue may rise slightly, certainly station areas and shops will be busier. They havent given any details on how much it is costing them yet, I think it is losing money, as some bus services wanted to pull out of the scheme.
I’m not sure it would work over here, our trains can be busy at any hour of the day, so no incentive to get more people on the trains. (Actually, the DfT are actively discouraging some train use, they are reducing services,and the size of trains on some routes, so people will be using other forms of transport rather than being in a packed/standing train. In the past, if a TOC had a full service every week on, say, a Wednesday,it could add another coach or two to that service. DfT managment does not allow that now.)
In many areas of the UK, train use *is* down... and services have been reduced to allow for this, rather than using pricing to get people back.
An "all in" ticket is a great idea, except it's hard to pair that with using pricing to shift demand from busy to quiet times.
Anyway... nationalising the operators one by one seems a good path to public ownership to me... hopefully then higher investment can follow without it leaking out to shareholders and cross subsidising other countries' rail transport.
Next... water please... back in public hands using the same slow one at a time take back... if we're going to have to put big money in, via bills or subsidy... let's also take back control...
water please… back in public hands using the same slow one at a time take back
Accord to labour a new government body would take over service contracts currently held by private firms as they expire in the coming years, how would that work for the water industry?
It's not surprising people don't use trains, I'm going down to London in a few weeks from Manchester and would love to go by train, even the cost doesn't put me off too much. It's whether I'll even get there or get home I can't cope with. Nationalisation long term *might bring improvements but many of the problems are caused by government and unions, both of which will still dominate so I don't think it's the panacea we'd like.
* I remember British Rail, those times weren't great either although at least ticketing was simpler.
I think it is losing money
It isn't meant to be financially profitable, it is meant to encourage people to use public transport, to be socially profitable. This is the problem with always framing everything with right wing rhetoric, then it is always about cost and never about benefit.
It’s whether I’ll even get there or get home I can’t cope with
Why are you worried that you wouldn't get there?
It isn’t meant to be financially profitable, it is meant to encourage people to use public transport, to be socially profitable. This is the problem with always framing everything with right wing rhetoric, then it is always about cost and never about benefit.
Spot on.
This is all born out of people believing the wealthy 'create' money to fund the public sector.
Any sort of efficiency arguments are demolished with the concept of austerity which simply makes everything worse.
It should be seen that lots of markets are dysfunctional and are the incorrect model for serving the public good.
The Stubbornness of the noisy economically illiterate class is to blame here.
Because I've already paid for accomodation and have plans for when I'm there. Given the state of the railways at the moment there's a reasonable chance my chosen train would be cancelled or randomly terminate somewhere between Manchester and London. Both my daughter and mother in law have had trains terminate way before their destination recently ( I had to drive to pick my mother in law up as no assistance was provided, she was just dumped 40 miles from her destination). Daughters train decided to return to its origin mid journey, she took a risk and got off and was lucky to get another train to her destination which was rammed and she didn't get a seat despite having reserved a seat on the original train.
If I go by car I might get delayed a bit but at least I know I'll get there and get home and have a seat and somewhere to put my luggage. It's also cheaper even factoring in fuel and parking.
So yeah I'm not taking the risk despite preferring to travel by train, when it runs well it's great, it's highly likely it run well.
I had no idea that intercity train travel was that bad. I use trains a lot but really only in London and south of London.
I am particularly impressed with the London Overground which was born out of a failed private venture - it allows me to get directly to East London in minutes, something which wasn't possible before.
Once I'm in London, (outskirts) the car won't move, I love the underground, it's excellent, so easy to use.
Up here we have Trans Pennine, a donkey is faster and more reliable. We used to go to Leeds or York from Tod on the train, it was nice not to drive, made it a proper day out. Its now faster to drive across the M62 with all the delays that entails.
My daughter has recently started using the coach, journey times are longer than the train (at least on paper), costs way less, guaranteed a seat and somewhere to safely put luggage. Plus it stops every couple of hours at the services for a break.
For the train to be a contender the railworkers, government and train operators all need to have a good word with themselves, they are all equally culpable for the delays, cancellations and terrible service.
“Anyway… nationalising the operators one by one seems a good path to public ownership to me “
Despite what the papers and Labour say, the Train Operators are effectively Nationalised already. The DfT controls them. The names are different due to the Management team who run the line. The Management teams (Avanti, MML, GWR etc) have no input on which trains to run, how much to charge, how many services a day etc, they are there to implement what the Government want, via the DfT. They do not set fares, and do not get any fare revenue, even if they double passenger numbers, they do not get a % fee (there may be some bonuses available, but they arent published). they are on a set fee, which was rumoured to be 1.5% of income when the Contract came in.
That is why there are still strikes by Drivers. The true ‘privately ran’ Companies (Open Access Operators Lumo, Grand Central, Hull Trains etc, freight Companies, and the Unitary Authorities) settled months ago, so dont have any strike days. It is only the ones run by the Government that are continuing to have strikes, as the Government wont allow any negotitions to settle the matter. Avanti takes the flak when no trains run from Euston, but it is the DfTs fault for not allowing any pay rises to placate the Drivers. All that Labour are doing is taking away one level of Management, and replacing it with a Government body.
“For the train to be a contender the railworkers, government and train operators all need to have a good word with themselves, they are all equally culpable for the delays, cancellations and terrible service.”
It is the Government.The Workers and Staff cannot be blamed. The DfT wont employ more Staff, they wont allow more trains to run (in fact TPX is the worst hit in that the DfT have taken away a number of their trains last December). TPX cannot do anything about the overcrowding, they only manage what they are told to do. The DfT tell them what to do.
The Government has done a great job in keeping these facts from people who dont follow the Railway workings. they wont allow Driver recruitment as it costs too much, so less trains run, trains are packed, but the people using them blame TPX, when TPX can do nothing about it. Its a big con trick which seems to be overlooked even by Labour, though, TBH, no Party is truly interested in getting a well run transport system, just look at how many Transport Secretaries there have been over the last 30 years, both Labour and Tories neglect the role, and the Railways have been reduced even further by being an off-shoot of the DfT, who are useless at running them, and only really interested in cutting costs. Cutting costs is a good thing, but their ideas just do not work, hence the railways need to be ran by Railway Staff, who actually know how things work.
Comparisons to France, Germany etc are not useful. Our network is more similar to Eastern Europe. A lot of investment is needed before we start improving reliability and punctuality.
The Labour plan should allow more centralisation, so good for public sector investment. The Tory plan could have lead to serious fragmentation - e.g. SouthEast doing really well then Wales & the North maybe not so.
Priorities for me are:
Finish HS2. Life WILL be better when this is done (for everyone). Make it functional, rather than fanciful.
Electrification between all major cities
Automatic signalling across the whole network
Continuous welded rail everywhere except Highlands
Mr Brown’s successor Rachel Reeves prefers a deadening consensus, sacrificing policies to placate business while committing to Tory spending now that is “paid for” by austerity later.
(Kelton) Her current argument that rising US interest rates might be inflationary finds her agreeing with her sharpest critic, Larry Summers. Such challenges should be welcome in Britain. The US debates have produced an industrial policy powered by government deficits – and the world’s fastest growing advanced economy.
https://twitter.com/FindingMoneyDoc/status/1784716679395565811?t=l1SvxmCC7JFn7fKoCbfDHQ&s=19
feature doc out on may3rd about MMT.
Good to see the Guardian Ed doing a half decent job.
I’ll watch that. How about posting this in your MMT thread for us to discuss it there once it’s released?
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/mmt/page/5/
Is the problem with transport in the UK that rail fares are artificially high, or that petrol/diesel prices are kept artificially low in comparison?
Not convinced at all that nationalising the rail operators will make any difference. It won't fix the problems with industrial action and there's clear evidence from companies like Grand Central and Lumo that services can run offering cheaper tickets. Being government-operated, LNER has no incentive to compete on prices.
The Guardian view on rethinking economics: a discipline in disarray holds too much sway in the UK
Editorial
I am frankly stunned. It hits all the nails squarely on the head, in fact too many to pick out - and its a Guardian editorial!!
Although it paints a depressing picture I think the belief that the growth strategy (whether for Tory tax cuts or Labour spending) will fail should be a reason for optimism.
As the editorial states "This strategy has failed since 2010. Why would it work now?" The Labour Party under Keir Starmer is ideologically rudderless, imo it is more likely to abandon failed economic policies than the Tories, who although are experiencing ideological turmoil (see mini budget) are nevertheless more committed to failed neoliberal policies.
I’ll watch that. How about posting this in your MMT thread for us to discuss it there once it’s released?
Good idea - but frankly i enjoy the more rounded view here - and Labour centric discussion, of this thread.
That thread just turned into lots of people annoyed at me/MMT - I haven't got time for that.
There is a Reeves element to this post of course.
I am frankly stunned. It hits all the nails squarely on the head, in fact too many to pick out – and its a Guardian editorial!!
Well we can make sure you are not too stunned Ernie because in the same digital guardian edition was this absolutely awful piece.
https://twitter.com/MTBrone/status/1784662336973783515
Hes at my work today, but Im wfh, anyone have any questions they want passing on, he's been chatting with everyone apparently- one of the lab assistants has a selfie with him (also him & defectee Dan Poulter), to go with her Sadiq Kahn one from a few weeks ago & the Theresa May one she got a few years ago!
Well we can make sure you are not too stunned Ernie because in the same digital guardian edition was this absolutely awful piece.
Nah, that's just a report suggesting that current policy makers are sticking to current dogma The Guardian editorial points out that the economic orthodoxy doesn't work and isn't the way forward.
The Labour Party under Keir Starmer is ideologically rudderless, imo it is more likely to abandon failed economic policies than the Tories,
Not sure either party understands or wants to understand there is another way I'd need to see a bit more evidence of that.
The whole thing is so less than scientific too - sticking to frameworks that simply don't work by any sort of useful metric. Conned into believing from the ground up the wealthy fund the state when it is the complete opposite.
They literally have everything back to front and no politician seems to want to stick their head up and point it out.
I always thought Covid would be thing to align our values back to what's important and here we are with worse than ever from both sides.
Not sure either party understands or wants to understand there is another way.
Yeah of course they do, why do always to dismiss them as completely clueless?
When Thatcher repeated endlessly her TINA mantra until eventually even the Labour Party embraced it she knew damn well there were plenty of another alternatives.
Don't confuse creating very useful economic myths with a lack of understanding.
You might believe that the economic policies of the last 45 years have failed but they certainly have not from a Tory perspective.
You might believe that the economic policies of the last 45 years have failed but they certainly have not from a Tory perspectiv
Because by their own measure of Tory success such as growth they've flatlined for years.
I know what you're saying but they're not even 'good" at what they're supposed to be good at.
Yeah of course they do, why do always to dismiss them as completely clueless?
Can't remember always saying they're clueless. But you would think if they want growth a la the USA they might consider some policies that would encourage it.
Reality is the Tories have done very little other than destroy what has been put place.
I genuinely think both parties have run aground because Neolibralism has not delivered the things that they thought it would and thus are out of new ideas to fix it.
I'm calling that clueless.
If it also has effect of making a few people very wealthy yes of course but I suspect most politicians thought trickle-down was actually good for us all.
And it has failed, clearly.
I suspect most politicians thought trickle-down was actually good for us all.
You genuinely believe that?
And unless the wealthiest 1% have become poorer in the last 45 years the Tories have not "failed" at all.
I'm not talking about the 1 percent.
I'm saying this particular model was sold as good for us all and yes of course lots of politicians did believe trickle-down was a thing.
You remember 'free enterprise works' stickers?
You talk of 'us' and the 1 percent they are different benefactors.
I would think it is still fairly common to think trickle down works. What amount trickles down and whether anyone would notice is the measure that none of them take because they wouldn't want to know.
I also think the tories were for more than the 1%. They were for the 10-20% who were privileged/entitled and didn't want the money they have taken from the country to be used for everyone in the country.
Changing this should be an easy sell as it is in theory 80+% of the electorate but we know how that has gone.
None of this is going to change under Starmer though so are we now just waiting for whoever replaces him and hoping they won't be just the same?
I would think it is still fairly common to think trickle down works.
Liz Truss believed in it. It doesn't work; rich people invest riches in making themselves richer rather than employing more serfs
Of course they know it doesn't "work". Trickle-down/reaganomics relies on making very wealthy people even wealthier through tax cuts - it's the only direct way that the state can make wealthy people even wealthier.
The claim that this will benefit ordinary people is contradicted by the fact that the three times post WW2 that this was tried it resulted in serious economic crisis - Maudling's dash for growth, the Barber boom, and the Lawson boom all ultimately failed.
They know damn well that if you give a dollar to a poor person it will stimulate more economic activity than if you give it to a very wealthy person. But why would they give a dollar to a poor person?
There lies the great contradiction of capitalism - accumulation of wealth leaves skint consumers, and skint consumers are no good to anyone.
But neoliberal policies have not failed the people they were designed to help. For example despite the the very serious economic crisis of the early 80s and again a decade later the very wealthy became even wealthier in that period.
And giving the middle-classes some crumbs from the top table does not represent serving their needs. The ruling elite need to win elections, they do this through a combination of providing crumbs and creating myths.
Hold onto your tits, everyone, you're not gonna believe this - Aaron Bastani has just realised that maybe George Galloway isn't the right guy for those alienated from the Labour Party by Starmer! Who could have ever predicted this? So weird that a man who worked for Putin's TV channel and is a practising Roman Catholic turned out to be homophobic! 😮
and is a practising Roman Catholic
Ah, that will explain why George Galloway has been divorced 3 times.
Btw Aaron Bastani claims that his Catholic upbringing influenced his politics.
Luckily there are plenty of non-genocidal politicians so nothing quite that desperate is necessary.
Well the main Labour leader is a ferocious liar, and god knows what he actually believes but you never see such screaming outrage about his flip floppery from the 'sensible' middle ground of war endorsing commentators.
I mean Paul Mason has lot interest in hospital beds and mostly talks about the military now £££.
what his old paymaster Putin is up to!
I guess that repeating well-rehearsed myths might not be honest but it is known to be highly effective.
The actual reality however is surprisingly different. Just like Corbyn was warning the threat that Putin posed during the time that the Russian oligarchs were bankrolling the Tory Party, and was completely ignored, Galloway was condemning the Russians long before their special military operations in Ukraine.
When the truth can be manipulated so successfully is it surprising that the Tories win so many general elections?
2.30 minutes in.
Does George still think the recent Moscow terror attack was orchestrated/had involvement from the West/Ukraine though?
I think one example of George seemingly having a moment of sanity, doesn't deflect from his long history of supporting Putin's regime and false narrative. That isn't a myth, and calling it out as such is wilfully ignoring the weight of evidence backing it up. Sure. he's not paid or directed by Putin, but he doesn't need to be, just that his version of the world suits those regimes enough to have given him a platform.
Does that mean that the few things that he says might make sense in complete isolation, are enough to support the rest of his abhorrent views? That's a question for those choosing to defend him to answer...
Well if Galloway has plenty of abhorrent views there is no need to claim that he is paid or directed by Putin. A tactic much used by right-wingers despite Putin regime's close connections with right-wingers across the world - from the UK Tories to Donald Trump.
It's an exaggeration to suggest he's paid/directed by Putin for sure. But that's almost a technicality when compared with the substance of his views and actions in support of Putin's Russia. Whether he is actually paid/directed is somewhat besides the point; what he says and does in relation to Russia, makes him a de facto stooge in any case. Coming to his defence on a technicality, comes across as inferring (deliberately or otherwise) that his views on Russia have merit and have been misunderstood. Fair enough if that wasn't your intention.
I still think the weight of evidence/his actions refute that quite clearly, and the example above doesn't really cut through the sheer weight of everything else. Particularly as Putin's relationship with oligarchs is somewhat mixed to say the least, so that subject area isn't much in the way of defying Putin's outlook.
I mean Paul Mason has lot interest in hospital beds and mostly talks about the military now £££.
Mason has been on an interesting journey. From lefty economist and neo-Marxist to full on military-industrial-complex apologist. Won’t be long before he’s banging the Zionist drum and/or proposing a nuclear first strike. 🙄
It’s an exaggeration to suggest he’s paid/directed by Putin for sure.
Well, not now, obviously. But for the time Galloway presented his show on Russia Today (founded and funded by Presidential Decree of VV Putin). Clearly Putin wasn't putting anything on Galloway's autocue, but Galloway knew where the money was coming from. It should be no surprise to Bastani that a sympathetiser with a wildly homophobic regime like Putin's (let alone his other former employer at Press TV, the Islamic Republic of Iran) is himself a homophobe.
Personally I would have thought that George Galloway rubbing shoulders with a racist and bigot like Nigel Farage, or his public accusations that the current Tory government is not protecting our borders from "illegal immigrants", was more worrying than the much repeated right-wing Tory press claims that he is Putin's/the ayatollahs henchman.
Although I can see the obvious reason why the right-wing want to push that line.
His views on Russia don't just have to just be a Tory right wing attack line, as explained above, they can also simply just stand as another horrible truth about the man. Not sure any of it needs to be ranked, it all rests on a plane of his true awfulness....
I know this is silly but this is clever
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1787819767807500383
theyve got a pi$$take vid for every PM, so far theyve done Cameron & May
the thumbnails for the shows are great
Now it is a bit sad that Labour arent showing what theyll do better and running a negative campaign is self-defeating (see Susan Hall) but systematically turning each Tory PM into a figure of ridicule is a pretty good tactic
24 hour lockdown party people 😀 😀
Not realy funny though that number 10 were at the booze, pills and nose candy while people were dying in their thousands.
I know the Labour Party are desperate to get elected, but Natilie Elphick!!! I’ve just done a sweary dance around the kitchen. I despair.
She's not standing at the next election though... this is just her exiting in a way that delivers a knifing to her party for its grandstanding and failure for her constituency (they deserve it). It'll still be Mike Tapp campaigning and standing for Labour in her seat. Hopefully as soon as possible.
even still, though. She is the absolute worst of the worst. I'm really uncomfortable with her being welcomed into the party, even for a month. I don't think it sends a good message at all.
Agreed.
I can't follow that link to the Times though, but from what I remember of past reporting her defence of her husband made her a very poor choice to replace him as MP, and plenty of Labour MPs must be very uncomfortable about this defection. I doubt she'll have any involvement with Labour locally or nationally now though.... the defection is just about cynically maximising the damage to her old party... becoming an independent would be a very quiet event in comparison.
and plenty of Labour MPs must be very uncomfortable about this defection.
Not to mention plenty of potential Labour voters.
Not sure what Starmer's thinking was here.
None of this is going to change under Starmer though so are we now just waiting for whoever replaces him and hoping they won’t be just the same?
#1 Rule, get elected.
Starmer isn't stupid, he knows that until he's sat in Number 10 he has to toe the line - once there then he can (start) to run with the policies he wants to., but has to be careful.
Let's go back to 1997 with Blair & Brown, they knew that they had to toe the line too, and successfully did plus made enough changes that it took the Tories over a decade to destroy their work - this is what Starmer has to do too.
Remember how gullible far too many voters can be - just look at the current clamour to leave the ECHR. They're literally demanding to lose their own human rights, #usefulidiots
Starmer isn’t stupid, he knows that until he’s sat in Number 10 he has to toe the line – once there then he can (start) to run with the policies he wants to., but has to be careful.
Sorry I can't agree with that, there has never been a better time to highlight the failings of the tory/neoliberal economic policies. Failing to make those arguments now, when through on an open goal, shows IMO that there is no intention of changing tact after winning an election.
I find it odd that the same group of people who think the tories are being dragged rightward by reform and the ERG headbangers are so dismissive of the same impact on Labour. In my lifetime I cannot think of many if any times when the body politic has conceded ground to the right wing, and that has appeased them. To continually keep conceding the argument in the expectation that you can easily regain that position later is just a demonstratable failed approach.
Remember how gullible far too many voters can be – just look at the current clamour to leave the ECHR. They’re literally demanding to lose their own human rights, #usefulidiots
What clamour? I think that you might have fallen for right-wing Tory propaganda, ironically.
Less than a quarter of the public think Britain should leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), according to a new poll.
It also found that pledging to leave the ECHR at the election would lose twice as many votes for the Conservatives as they would gain from the promise.
Any sign of Diane Abbot being accepted back into the Labour Party now that they are accepting racists and rape apologists?, or is the shite that the likes of David Mencer threw at her just too much to wash off
Hear hear MSP.
#1 Rule, get elected
1) Not happended - yet
2) Stronger leftist arguments are more useful in seeing off Tory failure and help change the narrative.
3) Long-term Labour are just helping cement the idea that running the country with conservative policy is the only way as long as we do it better than the Tories. Busted flush - Conservative policy has failed us, that's why there so much contempt for the Tories. The irony is mind blowing.
Starmer isn’t stupid, he knows that until he’s sat in Number 10 he has to toe the line – once there then he can (start) to run with the policies he wants to
So you feel he is a doing a Johnson? Doing whatever it takes to get power?
You dont see any problems with this approach? How it will continue to drag politics down and help the hard rights they are all the same as each other spiel?
Exactly what will be the point of actively voting for a party rather than just rolling a dice to select the party to vote for?
Starmer isn’t stupid, he knows that until he’s sat in Number 10 he has to toe the line – once there then he can (start) to run with the policies he wants to
Maybe.
But how sure are you that the policies you want him to enact are in any way compatible with the policies he wants to enact?
There is no 4d chess being played here, people just WANT him to be better and maybe if they really really concentrate hard he might just deliver. But he won't. He's going to remain true to form and we'll have another 5 years of the same shite.
Cold War Steve nails it yet again
He’s going to remain true to form and we’ll have another 5 years of the same shite.
The thing that will change is that we won't see the culture war shit and contempt for people in need which will be a nice rest and even though none of that stuff the tories say actually ends up happening it is still not helping.
The obvious problem will be when we hear the "I voted for Labour and 4 years later my life is no different at all so will be voting tory again as I have completely forgotten how ****ing awful the tories were"
Starmer isn’t stupid, he knows that until he’s sat in Number 10 he has to toe the line – once there then he can (start) to run with the policies he wants to
But the ideas (floating concept for him) he wants to run with will probably be policies that align with the right.
If he believes he needs to 'act' like a right-wing cut-out to gain power then to maintain power why would he swing left? (And governments don't )
Besides it's an incoherent way of doing things and it's not hard (for the hundredth time) to make good anti-conservative but pro-electorate policy arguments.
Centrists seem to never understand being a Centrist means endorsing right-wing failure just to gain power. That is your literally your coup d'état.
I see tip-top Centrists Marina Purkiss and Supertanskiii - are not impressed with Sir Starmer's latest antics.
And rightly so. Have some moral backbone - instead of simply trying to deconstruct Starmer's moves as 'clever' when effectively it's all bit pathetic.
The thing that will change is that we won’t see the culture war shit and contempt for people in need
I remain to be convinced. Nothing from Labour has suggested rolling us back to 2010 employment legislation, benefits etc. Let alone making actual progress.
The thing that will change is that we won’t see the culture war shit and contempt for people in need
I wish I could be confident in that being true. The reality is that the culture war shit will almost certainly intensify when we have a Labour government.
It's not easy for the Tories to be critical of government policies on immigration, terrorism, prisons, equal rights, asylum seekers, etc, when they are in government. Once in opposition, which they will be after the next general election, they won't be pulling any punches and they will certainly up the antis.
I can visualise the screaming Daily Mail/Daily Telegraph right now. The question is how will prime minister Starmer respond?
Based on his track record as leader of the opposition how likely do you think it is that he will firmly reject the Tory and right-wing press's agenda?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/16/keir-starmer-past-scrutiny
The largest group of benefits prosecutions concern the minor infractions of people who fail to declare a piece of information. For example, when part-time workers on housing benefit fail to tell the authorities that their hours at work have increased. Starmer’s words (“getting one over on the system”) were wide enough so that it seemed he was referring to such groups of claimants. And, in doing so, he evoked tabloid myths about undeserving individuals deliberately and systematically milking the system. To speak of claimants in this way was to denigrate them.
Starmer’s enthusiasm while DPP for using mundane news events to feed the press with rightwing talking points is a possible concern for Labour members. If such a leader was faced with news of an injustice in the future – the consequence of a change to immigration rules, say, or of a strike in public services – Starmer’s approach to the press as DPP might raise worries that he would not give a principled defence of the victims but would tell the press whatever it wanted to hear.
But the ideas (floating concept for him) he wants to run with will probably be policies that align with the right.
But 'right wing' policies have always been part of the Labour offer; strong policing, and criminal justice system a nuclear deterrent, restrictions on immigration, (historically) leaving the EU. Having FPTP squashes and overlaps the two main parties. In any other European system Labour (and for that matter the Tories as well) would be 3-4 different parties making and breaking coalitions each election.
Having FPTP squashes and overlaps the two main parties. In any other European system Labour (and for that matter the Tories as well) would be 3-4 different parties making and breaking coalitions each election.
A large Labour majority will not be easy to manage, and the higher the number of MPs the bigger the disagreements will be.
Starmer seems determined not just to win the next election but set Labour up for a long time in power, partly by breaking the Tories (though theyre doing that without too much help thanks to brexit among other things) but also by getting a broad coalition of voters on board. Thats not an easy task, especially in those disenfranchised red wall seats who seem happy to swing behind whichever party offers them a better future.
A large Labour majority will not be easy to manage, and the higher the number of MPs the bigger the disagreements will be.
I disagree. With so many MP and from such a broad spectrum of views, will in all likely decrease the number of disagreements.
If you've got teeny majority every vote becomes a knife-edge thing, and forces the whips to push recalcitrant MPs into voting in ways they don't necessarily want to. With a massive majority, it no longer becomes an issue. The MPs who feel they can't support can avoid it as it's less impactful. Similarly you can let your MP introduce things that as a leadership you may have otherwise been against and they can stand/fall on the strength of the vote.
“Starmer seems determined not just to win the next election but set Labour up for a long time in power, partly by breaking the Tories (though theyre doing that without too much help thanks to brexit among other things “
I agree with the part in brackets, - the Tories have screwed up their own chances, and keep doing stupid things, rather than have a strategy to get out of it. I fail to see what Keir Starmer, or the Labour party, have done to bring about their downfall. As I see it he hasnt done much at all, people are sick of the Tories, and want change. A donkey with a red badge could win the next election. But seriously, what is Labour going to do that is different? All I hear is much of the same when they get in. They’ll win it not because they are good, but because the Tories are so bad.