Election Year or Fear!

[swaledale]

I am certainly impressed with claimed 150,000, joining a march organised by convicted criminals and known fascists, many of whom apparently joined for other reasons than the march was widely and clearly publicised for (I mean that's what one does isn't it? Join a march for say the abolition of the monarchy but claim that actually they marched for other unconnected reasons!) but not perhaps as impressive as the 1 million plus who marched against the Iraq war.

Though of course its highly possible that many of those didn't join the march for that reason but simply fancied marching through London, or made up their own reasons rather than appear to be anti war!

[swaledale]

Ever thought some posters might just post stuff to rattle cages rather than actually believing the drivel they sometimes post?

If that's the case, they singularly fail to rattle mine! I realise its often pearls before swine, but one does have to try and overcome the dogma, narrow world views and miserable old git philosophy that often prevails. Of course there is one poster who is so far down the rabbit hole, that no amount of debate or discussion is worth it. But I ignore him and lifes fine!

[SithHappens]

Royal Parks and RSPCA have rejected Farages claims about swan eating.

https://news.sky.com/story/royal-parks-responds-to-farages-claim-that-swans-are-being-eaten-by-eastern-europeans-in-the-uk-13437205

Andy, as you are looking closely at peoples posts I'll leave it for you to decide if accusing another poster of gas lighting is appropriate.

Who I'm supposed to be gas lighting i have no idea.

[MadAmster]

Go on Twitter, says our resident "rode hond". It's been called X since July 23rd, 2023. The majority of crap on there is just that, crap. Dutch posters are as bad as English language ones. They come out with outlandish posts that are almost never backed up by genuine facts. Why anybody with a reasonable number of brain cells would believe a word on there is a mystery.

[MadAmster]

A meme fact checked by me and AI.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid...684474&__cft__[0]=AZW_8qRLZSsns9dBZzNhau2vIH75L9S3TgTuw1kL1Y79B1tql-N2G2HdRboZ_Z0Nl0DYDlaidH60ooVNNrXMVeCdDC27OrgU1egB EHH0XsP_fTT4IpBQ1naCsfU5YGTeMS7cqgruCI3T3ByWNF-Byk_j75hB1qzjbU8p12WCXxR9k-CRyxg_y-vizJNNWwnMicU&__tn__=EH-R

NHS had 265K foreign workers in 2023. Correct.
720K empty homes in England in October 2024. Correct.
Second homes figure is exaggerated, 1.6M is only 770 K plus a further 70K used as holiday lets. Exaggerated but still plenty of second homes
Tesco 3.1Bn profit is correct.
The 20 energy company profits actually covers the period for the start of energy crisis so you can reasonably divide it by 5 and you still have 90Bn a year in profit.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Swale, re BR efficiency. You can think what you want but as someone who regularly commited in 80s and 90s during the last days of BR and the early days of privatised railways I can assure you BR was appalling. Cancelled trains, late running trains and standing around on platforms not knowing what was going on were regular events - maybe 2 or 3 times out of 10 weekly commutes.

You may dismiss this as simply anecdotal but it was an experience shared by everyone in my office (about 2000 all in) and resulted in many electing to drive in or stay in hotels the night before important meetings. But I guess these facts are irrelevant compared to yours which doubtless incorporate official data where a train is not deemed late if it's only 29 minutes late. Tell that to the commuter standing in the cold/rain/snow or even just normal conditions fretting about being late for work again and having to explain to a disbelieving management. Tell that to the people on hourly pay who were docked money yet had no recourse to compensation on their journeys.

So it was an (initial) breath of fresh air when the railways were privatised - at least for a couple of years - then most of the old failings came back. Underfunding of capital projects, continuous rises in ticket prices and slowly but surely shoddy performance, delays, cancellations etc such that by about 2010 it was as bad as it had been under BR.

So please don't look back on the final days of BR with rose tinted glasses. Maybe where (if) you used it, your experience was better than those of us commuting into the city, maybe the official performance statistics across the network level up the London area performance (and if course don't reflect the reality of late trains).

The last days of BR were in my experience, and that of my peer group, utterly atrocious. Nothing you can say will change my mind. I'm not saying that 30 odd years later it's much better (although more trains running / generally can find a seat) in terms of reliability - but during those intervening years there were some green shoots of improvement, albeit many of those withered on the vine.

But hey this is just 35 years of anecdotal experience so means nothing. Working from home and COVID have eased my pain. The numbers commuting to London will have fallen significantly so may be new BR will have more success than old BR as they will have way less passengers to carry. Hope so for the people still forced into the misery of commuting daily

[ramAnag]

The answer lies with the silent majorities. Khans elections have been on the piss poor turn outs of Londoners, but boosted by the ethnic vote.
That is changing. The silent majority are angry now and their stance has changed Reform is the classic example of it. Labour and the Tories according to Sky are going to get obliterated. Funnily though, Labours last outpost will be London, which speaks volumes. So, sorry RA,Sith your leanings may be all lovey dovey with Khan/Labour, but the majority have had enough of the shenanigans and want something different. Khan himself, if the trend continues will get the boot.

Tbf, not to mention accurate, Tricky, neither Sith nor I have ‘lovey dovey’ leanings towards Khan/Labour.
Sith has already said he didn’t vote Labour last year and I have acknowledged from the start that I know little about London.
To help you to catch up, GP cited Khan as a reason for Labour’s unpopularity. I queried why, if that’s the case, he’s won three CONSECUTIVE elections. GP has since been unable to answer other than to bang on about ULEZ which weirdly he actually approves of anyway.
Tbf to you, you have at least provided a possible reason, which may or may not prove correct, although I also remember you telling us all that Starmer would be gone within a year. Well he’s been around for going on fif**** months now. Had a rough ride admittedly, but still there with a sizeable majority.

[ramAnag]

You may dismiss this as simply anecdotal but it was an experience shared by everyone in my office (about 2000 all in) and resulted in many electing to drive in or stay in hotels the night before important meetings.

Did you really have 2000 in your office, GP? Must have been one hell of an office. Would have hated to be in the queue for the coffee machine.

[MadAmster]

Swale, re BR efficiency. You can think what you want but as someone who regularly commited in 80s and 90s during the last days of BR and the early days of privatised railways I can assure you BR was appalling. Cancelled trains, late running trains and standing around on platforms not knowing what was going on were regular events - maybe 2 or 3 times out of 10 weekly commutes.

You may dismiss this as simply anecdotal but it was an experience shared by everyone in my office (about 2000 all in) and resulted in many electing to drive in or stay in hotels the night before important meetings. But I guess these facts are irrelevant compared to yours which doubtless incorporate official data where a train is not deemed late if it's only 29 minutes late. Tell that to the commuter standing in the cold/rain/snow or even just normal conditions fretting about being late for work again and having to explain to a disbelieving management. Tell that to the people on hourly pay who were docked money yet had no recourse to compensation on their journeys.

So it was an (initial) breath of fresh air when the railways were privatised - at least for a couple of years - then most of the old failings came back. Underfunding of capital projects, continuous rises in ticket prices and slowly but surely shoddy performance, delays, cancellations etc such that by about 2010 it was as bad as it had been under BR.

So please don't look back on the final days of BR with rose tinted glasses. Maybe where (if) you used it, your experience was better than those of us commuting into the city, maybe the official performance statistics across the network level up the London area performance (and if course don't reflect the reality of late trains).

The last days of BR were in my experience, and that of my peer group, utterly atrocious. Nothing you can say will change my mind. I'm not saying that 30 odd years later it's much better (although more trains running / generally can find a seat) in terms of reliability - but during those intervening years there were some green shoots of improvement, albeit many of those withered on the vine.

But hey this is just 35 years of anecdotal experience so means nothing. Working from home and COVID have eased my pain. The numbers commuting to London will have fallen significantly so may be new BR will have more success than old BR as they will have way less passengers to carry. Hope so for the people still forced into the misery of commuting daily

So, Roger, the perennial underfunding of British Rail so it didn't perform well and, therefore, got targeted by HMG as a prime target for privatisation had absolutely nothing to do with the poor performances?

[Geoff Parkstone]

The organisation was 2000 split across three locations in London. remember these days were in the infancy of IT! There were for example about 60 "messengers" in the internal postroom

[Geoff Parkstone]

So, Roger, the perennial underfunding of British Rail so it didn't perform well and, therefore, got targeted by HMG as a prime target for privatisation had absolutely nothing to do with the poor performances?

Not sure I understand the question... underfunding was a significant part of the problem: underfunding by HMG as you say when nationalised, and continued underfunding once past the initial privatised funding that was doubtless part of the privatisation "deals" . Which comes back to my point about "can we afford to renationalise" as we will simply get back into that same underfunding spiral when back in full state ownership.

In principle Im not opposed to state ownership of services including water and railways, but its a huge financial commitment - not necessarily just to liberate the companies from private ownership but more relevantly to invest enough in the infrastructures that have been underfunded for probably 50 years. It will add pressure to an already creaking budget and PSBR which inevitably will lead to significant inflation with all the joys that brings in terms of pay disputes, poverty for those on fixed incomes, pensions and benefits etc etc. One might say a typical outcome of a labour government of old (although credit to Brown - not George - where it didnt happen under his stewardship of Treasury)

[MadAmster]

Not sure I understand the question... underfunding was a significant part of the problem: underfunding by HMG as you say when nationalised, and continued underfunding once past the initial privatised funding that was doubtless part of the privatisation "deals" . Which comes back to my point about "can we afford to renationalise" as we will simply get back into that same underfunding spiral when back in full state ownership.

In principle Im not opposed to state ownership of services including water and railways, but its a huge financial commitment - not necessarily just to liberate the companies from private ownership but more relevantly to invest enough in the infrastructures that have been underfunded for probably 50 years. It will add pressure to an already creaking budget and PSBR which inevitably will lead to significant inflation with all the joys that brings in terms of pay disputes, poverty for those on fixed incomes, pensions and benefits etc etc. One might say a typical outcome of a labour government of old (although credit to Brown - not George - where it didnt happen under his stewardship of Treasury)

Water. Take Thames Water (please, someone, anyone FFS take them...). Not sure of the precise figures but they are something like 15 Bn in debt with a similar "post" in the cost of the repair and maintenance of their "network" of water pipes, pumping stations, water towers etc. in order to get things back up to standard. On top of that they've thrown something like 12 BN at Shareholder's in dividends. The company is a dead man walking. Have they had HMG subsidies? Yes, they have. They also got a 3Bn emergency loan earlier this year. So, the taxpayer is subsidising a company that makes huge losses, can't afford repairs and maintenance but can afford to pay healthy dividends? Most sensible folk would look at that and go something to the effect of "chuffin ridiculous". The company is a dead man walking and when the corpse does eventually keel over, it will cost the taxpayer and customers even more money. Are they merely keeping their comatose company breathing until HMG is forced to buy it out so that they can pay more to the shareholders or will they eventually admit defeat, do the decent thing and walk away, leaving the country to pick up the tab?

Privatised rail only worked because they still got large HMG subsidies. They also, thanks to those subsidies, managed to pay shareholder dividends to the likes of the Dutch and other EU countries who happened to have shares in those companies. Another ridiculous state of affairs.

If HMG (read the taxpayer) is keeping these failing companies alive, we might as well transfer ownership to HMG and have done with it.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Did you really have 2000 in your office, GP? Must have been one hell of an office. Would have hated to be in the queue for the coffee machine.

Coffee machines? There were many many "coffee ladies" who would bring a trolley round several times a day with hot beverages and those little packets of 2 biscuits, which always seemed to be nasty Lincoln biscuits

[ramAnag]

The organisation was 2000 split across three locations in London. remember these days were in the infancy of IT! There were for example about 60 "messengers" in the internal postroom

Ah, right. So not exactly ‘my office’ then. Sorry, I was confused, my own office was always overcrowded with anything more than six people in it. Different realities I suppose. Thought you might have slipped an extra 0, or two, on by mistake.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Water. Take Thames Water (please, someone, anyone FFS take them...). Not sure of the precise figures but they are something like 15 Bn in debt with a similar "post" in the cost of the repair and maintenance of their "network" of water pipes, pumping stations, water towers etc. in order to get things back up to standard. On top of that they've thrown something like 12 BN at Shareholder's in dividends. The company is a dead man walking. Have they had HMG subsidies? Yes, they have. They also got a 3Bn emergency loan earlier this year. So, the taxpayer is subsidising a company that makes huge losses, can't afford repairs and maintenance but can afford to pay healthy dividends? Most sensible folk would look at that and go something to the effect of "chuffin ridiculous". The company is a dead man walking and when the corpse does eventually keel over, it will cost the taxpayer and customers even more money. Are they merely keeping their comatose company breathing until HMG is forced to buy it out so that they can pay more to the shareholders or will they eventually admit defeat, do the decent thing and walk away, leaving the country to pick up the tab?

Privatised rail only worked because they still got large HMG subsidies. They also, thanks to those subsidies, managed to pay shareholder dividends to the likes of the Dutch and other EU countries who happened to have shares in those companies. Another ridiculous state of affairs.

If HMG (read the taxpayer) is keeping these failing companies alive, we might as well transfer ownership to HMG and have done with it.

But thers no point pnationalising it without a solid commitment to invest those billions in infrastructure projects, otherwise you are simply moving the deck chairs around the Titanic. That's where the cost is - in remedying decades of under investment, not in simply removing the carcass of a sick company