Snap General Election called

[Mellsblue]

I'd again like to note a lot of the problems with a lack of state investment in companies now privatised stemmed from investment levels that were low 'cause the government doesn't have the money to invest, but also 'cause the Tories intentionally under invested to make the various bodies cheaper to buy, and whilst there has been a lot of private investment a lot of that is actually just based on borrowing. So you could get very similar investment levels if you simply allowed public bodies to borrow, whether that's a good thing is open to debate, but private investment does tend to push up debt held in the country rather than see new money coming in, whether that's a good or bad thing is also open to debate.

I'm of the view there tends to be good and bad in things run by the state and done privately, a plague on both their houses. But I lean towards state run organisations when it's national infrastructure with natural monopolies, and I'm amenable to not for profits sitting slightly outside the state.

I'm also of the view however if you want to renationalise you need a really clear idea where the money is coming from, to understand debt isn't free, and that you cannot nationalise in the cheap without risking a lot of investment beyond those previously private firms. So maybe now it's done I'd choose to work with what there is than launch into some massive public purchasing projects, it rather feels like there's already enough to be getting on with

Renationalisation would scare investors and make them wary about investing in other areas. I’d prefer to make the railways more efficient and user friendly by other means, such as subsidies. I get that many tax payers don’t want to pay for someone else’s travel, but equally I don’t want to pay for someone else’s police response. That’s just the way it works.

Cheaper public transport would make it more cost efficient to work further from home and for those whose incomes can’t sustain significant transport costs. It would also ease traffic on the roads.

The problem is you’re predominantly subsidising the middle classes. You’re subsidising those who don’t need it. Good luck explaining to Workington man that my mates earning six figures commuting from Herts, Beds and Bucks deserve their train tickets being subsidised. Even I don’t want to and I know and like them. Due to the nature of my job I can’t commute by train. Why should I subsidise others when I have no option to use public transport?
The UK rail subsidies are 6p per passenger per mile. Give me that and I’ll buy an electric car as part of the deal. Why should the green subsidy argument only apply to trains.
Police, fire service etc is universal coverage, we all might need them and we have no choice when/whether to use them. That isn’t true of trains.

[Digby]

Surely electric cars and the network for charging them receive subsidy, as in effect do roads

[Mellsblue]

Surely electric cars and the network for charging them receive subsidy, as in effect do roads

You get a one off lump sum for electric cars not a yearly subsidy. However, with current battery technology I would need a hybrid which wouldn’t be subsidised via a lump sum. I believe the lump sum is also only on new electric cars. Another subsidy for the middle classes.

The charging points are subsidised but that’s an essential as it’s not economically viable any other way. I’m certain they won’t be once the private sector feels its viable to be involved.

Everyone uses the roads be it car, bus or bike. It’s a universal provision. This is not true of rail.

[Digby]

Surely electric cars and the network for charging them receive subsidy, as in effect do roads

You get a one off lump sum for electric cars not a yearly subsidy. However, with current battery technology I would need a hybrid which wouldn’t be subsidised via a lump sum. I believe the lump sum is also only on new electric cars. Another subsidy for the middle classes.

The charging points are subsidised but that’s an essential as it’s not economically viable any other way. I’m certain they won’t be once the private sector feels its viable to be involved.

Everyone uses the roads be it car, bus or bike. It’s a universal provision. This is not true of rail.

I haven't used any tanks today

[Son of Mathonwy]

Everyone uses the roads be it car, bus or bike. It’s a universal provision. This is not true of rail.

Different people use roads to vastly different degrees. The same for rail. Rail is a universal provision - how many people do you know who've never travelled by train?

Anyway, what difference does this "universality" make? It doesn't change the fact that road use is subsidised.

[Puja]

The problem is you’re predominantly subsidising the middle classes. You’re subsidising those who don’t need it. Good luck explaining to Workington man that my mates earning six figures commuting from Herts, Beds and Bucks deserve their train tickets being subsidised. Even I don’t want to and I know and like them. Due to the nature of my job I can’t commute by train. Why should I subsidise others when I have no option to use public transport?

It's subsiding the middle class as things currently stand because they're the people who can afford to travel on the train with prices as exhorbitant as they are. If trains were significantly cheaper, they'd become a much more viable public transport method for a lot of people, as well as allowing flexibility for poorer people when job-seeking, instead of forcing them to look in their immediate local area.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Everyone uses the roads be it car, bus or bike. It’s a universal provision. This is not true of rail.

Different people use roads to vastly different degrees. The same for rail. Rail is a universal provision - how many people do you know who've never travelled by train?

Anyway, what difference does this "universality" make? It doesn't change the fact that road use is subsidised.

It is a universal provision, of sorts, yes in that everyone can use it but one that is used less widely. There are numerous towns and villages with no train stations. I live in a market town with train links to only two of the three cities within 90mins. Train is not truly universal. Roads are.
Universality does make a difference unless you’re happy for the many to be subsidising the few. Train subsidies are predominantly a subsidy for the better off.

[Mellsblue]

The problem is you’re predominantly subsidising the middle classes. You’re subsidising those who don’t need it. Good luck explaining to Workington man that my mates earning six figures commuting from Herts, Beds and Bucks deserve their train tickets being subsidised. Even I don’t want to and I know and like them. Due to the nature of my job I can’t commute by train. Why should I subsidise others when I have no option to use public transport?

It's subsiding the middle class as things currently stand because they're the people who can afford to travel on the train with prices as exhorbitant as they are. If trains were significantly cheaper, they'd become a much more viable public transport method for a lot of people, as well as allowing flexibility for poorer people when job-seeking, instead of forcing them to look in their immediate local area.

Puja

Only if that poorer person’s house and job is by a train station. I’m good with targeted subsidies, eg people below a certain income or season ticket:salary ratio. By that logic, let’s also give them subsidies for other modes of transport, too. Where I live there are three cities within 90mins but only two connected by train. What use is rail subsidies if someone needs to get to a job in the third city. There’s a market town near by that has no railway station at all. Rail subsidies are literally no use to those that live there.

[Digby]

The problem is you’re predominantly subsidising the middle classes. You’re subsidising those who don’t need it. Good luck explaining to Workington man that my mates earning six figures commuting from Herts, Beds and Bucks deserve their train tickets being subsidised. Even I don’t want to and I know and like them. Due to the nature of my job I can’t commute by train. Why should I subsidise others when I have no option to use public transport?

It's subsiding the middle class as things currently stand because they're the people who can afford to travel on the train with prices as exhorbitant as they are. If trains were significantly cheaper, they'd become a much more viable public transport method for a lot of people, as well as allowing flexibility for poorer people when job-seeking, instead of forcing them to look in their immediate local area.

Puja

Only if that poorer person’s house and job is by a train station. I’m good with targeted subsidies, eg people below a certain income or season ticket:salary ratio. By that logic, let’s also give them subsidies for other modes of transport, too. Where I live there are three cities within 90mins but only two connected by train. What use is rail subsidies if someone needs to get to a job in the third city. There’s a market town near by that has no railway station at all. Rail subsidies are literally no use to those that live there.

Or we could spend to provide coverage where it doesn't currently exist until rail is of use to far more people.

[Stom]

It's subsiding the middle class as things currently stand because they're the people who can afford to travel on the train with prices as exhorbitant as they are. If trains were significantly cheaper, they'd become a much more viable public transport method for a lot of people, as well as allowing flexibility for poorer people when job-seeking, instead of forcing them to look in their immediate local area.

Puja

Only if that poorer person’s house and job is by a train station. I’m good with targeted subsidies, eg people below a certain income or season ticket:salary ratio. By that logic, let’s also give them subsidies for other modes of transport, too. Where I live there are three cities within 90mins but only two connected by train. What use is rail subsidies if someone needs to get to a job in the third city. There’s a market town near by that has no railway station at all. Rail subsidies are literally no use to those that live there.

Or we could spend to provide coverage where it doesn't currently exist until rail is of use to far more people.

Or alternative solutions that are quick and affordable

[Mellsblue]

Only if that poorer person’s house and job is by a train station. I’m good with targeted subsidies, eg people below a certain income or season ticket:salary ratio. By that logic, let’s also give them subsidies for other modes of transport, too. Where I live there are three cities within 90mins but only two connected by train. What use is rail subsidies if someone needs to get to a job in the third city. There’s a market town near by that has no railway station at all. Rail subsidies are literally no use to those that live there.

Or we could spend to provide coverage where it doesn't currently exist until rail is of use to far more people.

Or alternative solutions that are quick and affordable

Agreed. The facts are that trains can never be a truly universal provision.

[Sandydragon]

The problem is you’re predominantly subsidising the middle classes. You’re subsidising those who don’t need it. Good luck explaining to Workington man that my mates earning six figures commuting from Herts, Beds and Bucks deserve their train tickets being subsidised. Even I don’t want to and I know and like them. Due to the nature of my job I can’t commute by train. Why should I subsidise others when I have no option to use public transport?

It's subsiding the middle class as things currently stand because they're the people who can afford to travel on the train with prices as exhorbitant as they are. If trains were significantly cheaper, they'd become a much more viable public transport method for a lot of people, as well as allowing flexibility for poorer people when job-seeking, instead of forcing them to look in their immediate local area.

Puja

What subsidy is that? The whole point is to make rail travel affordable again. Everyone benefits.

[Digby]

Or we could spend to provide coverage where it doesn't currently exist until rail is of use to far more people.

Or alternative solutions that are quick and affordable

Agreed. The facts are that trains can never be a truly universal provision.

So we say no to tidal power?

[Mellsblue]

Or alternative solutions that are quick and affordable

Agreed. The facts are that trains can never be a truly universal provision.

So we say no to tidal power?

At least it’s more relevant than tanks, I suppose. Energy security benefits everyone. Green energy benefits everyone. If we’re saying subsidised train travel is a green subsidy then I’m ok with that, but then I’d like the equivalent subsidies across all green modes of transport.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 53386.html

Boris Johnson to ‘stop tens of thousands voting’ by making photo ID mandatory at polling stations

Pilots of scheme saw hundreds of voters without photographic ID turned away from polling stations

Boris Johnson has confirmed plans to press ahead with new requirements for photographic ID at polling stations, in the face of accusations that the move is designed to suppress voting by young people and disadvantaged groups.

The prime minister faced immediate calls to ditch the “dangerous” proposal from the Electoral Reform Society, which warned: “Make no mistake – these plans will leave tens of thousands of legitimate voters voiceless.”

Campaigners accused the PM of taking action on an “imaginary” problem while ignoring more serious threats to British democracy, such as anonymous political ads, dodgy donations and fake news.

Meanwhile, the 15-year limit on expats voting in general elections is to be lifted, allowing UK citizens living abroad to continue casting their ballots for the rest of their lives.

Traditionally this has been seen as a way of boosting the Conservative vote, though Mr Johnson risks a backlash from the million-plus UK citizens in the EU who overwhelmingly supported Remain in the 2016 referendum but were denied a vote.

Article Continues...

[morepork]

And so it begins. Good luck with that fop-haired cunt.

[Stom]

Well, at least it looks like that wasn't my last ever vote!

[Son of Mathonwy]

Everyone uses the roads be it car, bus or bike. It’s a universal provision. This is not true of rail.

Different people use roads to vastly different degrees. The same for rail. Rail is a universal provision - how many people do you know who've never travelled by train?

Anyway, what difference does this "universality" make? It doesn't change the fact that road use is subsidised.

It is a universal provision, of sorts, yes in that everyone can use it but one that is used less widely. There are numerous towns and villages with no train stations. I live in a market town with train links to only two of the three cities within 90mins. Train is not truly universal. Roads are.
Universality does make a difference unless you’re happy for the many to be subsidising the few. Train subsidies are predominantly a subsidy for the better off.

This "universality" you bring up is a strange objection. Any subsidy offered will benefit some people over others. That doesn't mean that there should no no subsidies. Subsidise roads and 1) those who use roads more will benefit the most and 2) road use will be encouraged. Ditto cars (patrol or electric), buses (petrol or electric), trams, trains, aeroplanes. What do you want to encourage?

Obviously we need an efficient transport infrastructure, but beyond that there are (for me) two main considerations - 1) encouraging carbon-efficient transport, like walking, cycling, trams, trains and buses, 2) helping poorer people, (which I would guess would probably mean) by focusing on shorter-distance transport. (So I'm more of a fan of improving local transport in the North than building HS2.)

I agree that certain subsidies will help the well off more than others, but that in itself does not invalidate them because:
1) the subsidy will make that mode of transport more available to poorer people, and
2) more carbon-efficient transport will result (which benefits people across the world, particularly the poor).

[Mellsblue]

Different people use roads to vastly different degrees. The same for rail. Rail is a universal provision - how many people do you know who've never travelled by train?

Anyway, what difference does this "universality" make? It doesn't change the fact that road use is subsidised.

It is a universal provision, of sorts, yes in that everyone can use it but one that is used less widely. There are numerous towns and villages with no train stations. I live in a market town with train links to only two of the three cities within 90mins. Train is not truly universal. Roads are.
Universality does make a difference unless you’re happy for the many to be subsidising the few. Train subsidies are predominantly a subsidy for the better off.

This "universality" you bring up is a strange objection. Any subsidy offered will benefit some people over others. That doesn't mean that there should no no subsidies. Subsidise roads and 1) those who use roads more will benefit the most and 2) road use will be encouraged. Ditto cars (patrol or electric), buses (petrol or electric), trams, trains, aeroplanes. What do you want to encourage?

Obviously we need an efficient transport infrastructure, but beyond that there are (for me) two main considerations - 1) encouraging carbon-efficient transport, like walking, cycling, trams, trains and buses, 2) helping poorer people, (which I would guess would probably mean) by focusing on shorter-distance transport. (So I'm more of a fan of improving local transport in the North than building HS2.)

I agree that certain subsidies will help the well off more than others, but that in itself does not invalidate them because:
1) the subsidy will make that mode of transport more available to poorer people, and
2) more carbon-efficient transport will result (which benefits people across the world, particularly the poor).

I haven’t said there should be no subsidies. I just think if you subsidise something then it should be targeted at those who need the financial help and shouldn’t discriminate due to factors out of people’s control, ie not everyone (with no proof I’d say the majority) can get to work on a train and/or have a job where a car is essential.

I’ve already stated who and what should be encouraged. As I said to Puja, I’m very happy to help subsidise poorer demographics on the trains via means testing. As I said to Diggers, I’m happy for green subsidies but that really should include all green modes of transport, not just those who use trains.

If you think train subsidies should just be applied as blanket coverage in the hope it helps poorer demographics despite predominantly helping the middle classes then fine. Seems odd to me, though.

I feel the same about winter fuel allowance. It’s not just a transport thing.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 53386.html

I've only just noticed this part, further down the article:

Voters will have to renew their registration to vote by post every three years, rather than remaining on the list indefinitely.

Disenfranchising even more people who aren't as switched on to these things.

Quite honestly, I don't even see what problem that's trying to solve - beyond that too many of the wrong sort of people vote in elections (with a significant overlap in which party they tend to vote for).

[Mellsblue]

Big fan of these bits from the Queen’s speech:

Agriculture Bill
Replaces the EU Common Agricultural Policy with a post-Brexit system of subsidies that rewards farmers for promoting biodiversity and access to the countryside, rather than yield.

English devolution
White paper to hand powers to the regions, boosting the number of mayors and giving greater autonomy to combined authorities.

Social Care
Repeat of the Conservative manifesto promise to start looking for a cross-party solution to shield people from catastrophic care costs so that no one has to sell their home. In the interim £500 million a year will be put in to prop up the current system.

Health Service Safety Investigations Bill
This legislation would enshrine the existing Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch as a legally independent Health Service Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) with the ability to keep secret anything doctors and nurses tell it in order to create a “safe space” for them to speak honestly about mistakes.

Online Harms
A duty of care will be imposed on social media companies, overseen by an independent regulator, to prevent cyberbullying, child sex abuse and terrorist propaganda. Plans out for consultation.

Employment Bill
Obliges all firms to pass on the full value of tips, service charges and gratuities to staff without deduction. Extends redundancy protections to pregnant women and makes flexible working the “default” for all workers unless employers have good reason to refuse. Workers would have the right to request a more predictable contract. Parents of sick babies will be allowed extended leave and unpaid carers will be entitled to week’s leave. There will also be a new single workers rights enforcement body.

Renters’ Reform Bill
Makes “no fault” evictions illegal while setting up a new lifetime deposit scheme that could transfer between properties. There will also be a new register of rogue landlords. Landlords promised a streamlined court process to get their properties back.

Housing
Promise to consult on 30 per cent discount for local people and key workers buying a first home. New shared ownership and affordable house building programme also promised. Planning white paper to make building easier and £10 billion for schools and GPs around new developments.

Pension Schemes Bill
Prison sentences for employers who are reckless with employee pension schemes will be among powers given to the Pensions Regulator. Clear information in a “pensions dashboard” has also been promised to savers along with new rights to transfer money to another pension scheme.

Domestic Abuse Bill
Creates a statutory definition of domestic abuse, emphasising that it is not just physical but can also be emotional, coercive or economic abuse. Establishes a domestic abuse commissioner to represent victims and survivors, raise public awareness and hold public bodies to account. Creates a statutory presumption that victims of domestic abuse will be given special support in criminal courts, such as the ability to give evidence by video link
Domestic abusers will be banned from cross-examining their victims in court.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill
An introduction of no-fault divorce, removing the requirement that one spouse must make an allegation about the other’s conduct to end a marriage. It will also remove the possibility of one spouse contesting the decision to divorce. There will be a new option to make a joint application to divorce in cases where the decision to divorce is a mutual one.


Confirmation that the schools budget will increase by £4.3 billion in real terms by 2022-23. A cumulative cash boost of £14 billion over three years.

Reiteration of promises to raise the minimum wage to £10.50 an hour and increase the threshold for national insurance contributions.

Space, science and research
Doubling R&D spending and creating a national space council. Prioritising government investment in areas where the UK can gain a competitive advantage, such as clean energy, space, robotics and artificial intelligence.

[Puja]

It is a universal provision, of sorts, yes in that everyone can use it but one that is used less widely. There are numerous towns and villages with no train stations. I live in a market town with train links to only two of the three cities within 90mins. Train is not truly universal. Roads are.
Universality does make a difference unless you’re happy for the many to be subsidising the few. Train subsidies are predominantly a subsidy for the better off.

This "universality" you bring up is a strange objection. Any subsidy offered will benefit some people over others. That doesn't mean that there should no no subsidies. Subsidise roads and 1) those who use roads more will benefit the most and 2) road use will be encouraged. Ditto cars (patrol or electric), buses (petrol or electric), trams, trains, aeroplanes. What do you want to encourage?

Obviously we need an efficient transport infrastructure, but beyond that there are (for me) two main considerations - 1) encouraging carbon-efficient transport, like walking, cycling, trams, trains and buses, 2) helping poorer people, (which I would guess would probably mean) by focusing on shorter-distance transport. (So I'm more of a fan of improving local transport in the North than building HS2.)

I agree that certain subsidies will help the well off more than others, but that in itself does not invalidate them because:
1) the subsidy will make that mode of transport more available to poorer people, and
2) more carbon-efficient transport will result (which benefits people across the world, particularly the poor).

I haven’t said there should be no subsidies. I just think if you subsidise something then it should be targeted at those who need the financial help and shouldn’t discriminate due to factors out of people’s control, ie not everyone (with no proof I’d say the majority) can get to work on a train and/or have a job where a car is essential.

I’ve already stated who and what should be encouraged. As I said to Puja, I’m very happy to help subsidise poorer demographics on the trains via means testing. As I said to Diggers, I’m happy for green subsidies but that really should include all green modes of transport, not just those who use trains.

If you think train subsidies should just be applied as blanket coverage in the hope it helps poorer demographics despite predominantly helping the middle classes then fine. Seems odd to me, though.

I feel the same about winter fuel allowance. It’s not just a transport thing.

The issue with means testing is that it creates an ungodly amount of bureaucracy to administer, oftimes costing more than just giving a blanket benefit. How would you even run it on the trains - ask people to bring a P60 and passport with them when they buy a train ticket?

Actually, that would be on brand for this government...

Puja

[Mellsblue]

This "universality" you bring up is a strange objection. Any subsidy offered will benefit some people over others. That doesn't mean that there should no no subsidies. Subsidise roads and 1) those who use roads more will benefit the most and 2) road use will be encouraged. Ditto cars (patrol or electric), buses (petrol or electric), trams, trains, aeroplanes. What do you want to encourage?

Obviously we need an efficient transport infrastructure, but beyond that there are (for me) two main considerations - 1) encouraging carbon-efficient transport, like walking, cycling, trams, trains and buses, 2) helping poorer people, (which I would guess would probably mean) by focusing on shorter-distance transport. (So I'm more of a fan of improving local transport in the North than building HS2.)

I agree that certain subsidies will help the well off more than others, but that in itself does not invalidate them because:
1) the subsidy will make that mode of transport more available to poorer people, and
2) more carbon-efficient transport will result (which benefits people across the world, particularly the poor).

I haven’t said there should be no subsidies. I just think if you subsidise something then it should be targeted at those who need the financial help and shouldn’t discriminate due to factors out of people’s control, ie not everyone (with no proof I’d say the majority) can get to work on a train and/or have a job where a car is essential.

I’ve already stated who and what should be encouraged. As I said to Puja, I’m very happy to help subsidise poorer demographics on the trains via means testing. As I said to Diggers, I’m happy for green subsidies but that really should include all green modes of transport, not just those who use trains.

If you think train subsidies should just be applied as blanket coverage in the hope it helps poorer demographics despite predominantly helping the middle classes then fine. Seems odd to me, though.

I feel the same about winter fuel allowance. It’s not just a transport thing.

The issue with means testing is that it creates an ungodly amount of bureaucracy to administer, oftimes costing more than just giving a blanket benefit. How would you even run it on the trains - ask people to bring a P60 and passport with them when they buy a train ticket?

Actually, that would be on brand for this government...

Puja

Similar to the way you get a railcard, I suppose. Bring in proof once a year and get your railcard.

[Sandydragon]

On the other hand, the middle class pay more in taxes so why shouldn’t they see benefits in other ways. They are less likely to receive UC after all.

In addition, temping the middle class onto public transport and out of their cars must be a good thing.

[Mellsblue]

On the other hand, the middle class pay more in taxes so why shouldn’t they see benefits in other ways. They are less likely to receive UC after all.

In addition, temping the middle class onto public transport and out of their cars must be a good thing.

Not really how trickledown economics works. MP, I know you think trickledown doesn’t work at all.

Agreed. Like I’ve said, if it’s a green subsidy I’m happy with that but those who don’t have any choice but to use a car should be able to access green subsidies for their mode of transport, too.