RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: 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.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
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.

That's hardly universally applicable though - many poorer people can't afford to get an annual railcard. it's more expensive to have an annual railcard if you're only working part time and need it 3 days a week, and it doesn't really take into account one-off or irregular trips.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote: 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 wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: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 wrote:

Puja wrote:

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

That's hardly universally applicable though - many poorer people can't afford to get an annual railcard. it's more expensive to have an annual railcard if you're only working part time and need it 3 days a week, and it doesn't really take into account one-off or irregular trips.

Puja

I didn’t say they had to buy a railcard. You asked how people would prove they were eligible for subsidised travel. I suggested it could run along the lines of a railcard, ie bring your proof in once a year and then have a card you can show whenever you need to purchase a ticket.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
That's hardly universally applicable though - many poorer people can't afford to get an annual railcard. it's more expensive to have an annual railcard if you're only working part time and need it 3 days a week, and it doesn't really take into account one-off or irregular trips.

Puja

I didn’t say they had to buy a railcard. You asked how people would prove they were eligible for subsidised travel. I suggested it could run along the lines of a railcard, ie bring your proof in once a year and then have a card you can show whenever you need to purchase a ticket.

Sorry, misunderstood you. It's still hardly foolproof - lots of payslips are electronic nowadays, which makes them difficult to present at a train station, and printouts very easily forged, plus you'd have to spend money on advertising this new railcard, training staff, introducing new computer systems to acknowledge a two-tier fare system, possibly some kind of database of these railcards if you wanted people still to be able to buy tickets online. Frankly, it seems far easier just to have more reasonable fares for everyone, like the rest of Europe, rather than means testing.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
That's hardly universally applicable though - many poorer people can't afford to get an annual railcard. it's more expensive to have an annual railcard if you're only working part time and need it 3 days a week, and it doesn't really take into account one-off or irregular trips.

Puja

I didn’t say they had to buy a railcard. You asked how people would prove they were eligible for subsidised travel. I suggested it could run along the lines of a railcard, ie bring your proof in once a year and then have a card you can show whenever you need to purchase a ticket.

Sorry, misunderstood you. It's still hardly foolproof - lots of payslips are electronic nowadays, which makes them difficult to present at a train station, and printouts very easily forged, plus you'd have to spend money on advertising this new railcard, training staff, introducing new computer systems to acknowledge a two-tier fare system, possibly some kind of database of these railcards if you wanted people still to be able to buy tickets online. Frankly, it seems far easier just to have more reasonable fares for everyone, like the rest of Europe, rather than means testing.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: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 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Heh - media in action. The more likely the general populace has heard of a Labour person, the more likely the context has been "in association with the terrorist-lover, Marxist who hates our country, Jeremy Corbyn!"

Thornberry should not run, IMO. She's got good qualities, but she's an open goal to the Conservative/Cummings propaganda machine with her previous comments (and the quote about Leave voters being stupid which, while possibly not true, sounds enough like her that it'll stick). I'm still annoyed Rayner isn't running.

Puja

Banquo wrote:

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

....

Tory scum.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

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

....

Tory scum.

Some decent outlines in there. Detail and delivery will prove telling

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Tory scum.

Some decent outlines in there. Detail and delivery will prove telling

well yes.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Some decent outlines in there. Detail and delivery will prove telling

well yes.

I'd also like to know where they're getting the money from. And I'd like to know what comes first, the spend even if that drives up borrowing, or the revenue

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: well yes.

I'd also like to know where they're getting the money from. And I'd like to know what comes first, the spend even if that drives up borrowing, or the revenue

well yes.

Banquo wrote: Tory scum,

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Tory scum,

Sodding edits. Though I wasn't commenting which should be the main driver, more I felt they should have been setting out in their manifesto what the main driver would be, and having failed for whatever reason to have done so should be telling us now how they intend to proceed.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Heh - media in action. The more likely the general populace has heard of a Labour person, the more likely the context has been "in association with the terrorist-lover, Marxist who hates our country, Jeremy Corbyn!"

Thornberry should not run, IMO. She's got good qualities, but she's an open goal to the Conservative/Cummings propaganda machine with her previous comments (and the quote about Leave voters being stupid which, while possibly not true, sounds enough like her that it'll stick). I'm still annoyed Rayner isn't running.

Puja

Mikey Brown wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Heh - media in action. The more likely the general populace has heard of a Labour person, the more likely the context has been "in association with the terrorist-lover, Marxist who hates our country, Jeremy Corbyn!"

Thornberry should not run, IMO. She's got good qualities, but she's an open goal to the Conservative/Cummings propaganda machine with her previous comments (and the quote about Leave voters being stupid which, while possibly not true, sounds enough like her that it'll stick). I'm still annoyed Rayner isn't running.

Puja

So I've just started seeing a flurry of comments about what a horrible racist Jess Philips is. Strange coincidence really. She's been a vocal critic of Corbyn, lives outside of London and is female, which seem to be the hot trends. So I guess she is due a character assassination of some sort.

I don't know much about her, so perhaps she is a closet Nazi, but she's seemed pretty compassionate and level-headed in the little I've heard from her.

Anyone got any real opinions about her?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Tory scum,

Sodding edits. Though I wasn't commenting which should be the main driver, more I felt they should have been setting out in their manifesto what the main driver would be, and having failed for whatever reason to have done so should be telling us now how they intend to proceed.

I don't think that's what the Queens speech ever does, that's what the new budget will do.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Sodding edits. Though I wasn't commenting which should be the main driver, more I felt they should have been setting out in their manifesto what the main driver would be, and having failed for whatever reason to have done so should be telling us now how they intend to proceed.

I don't think that's what the Queens speech ever does, that's what the new budget will do.

That should set out what they are doing, it might not set out what they're aiming to do and what will inform that. Both main parties having found a magic money tree failed to set out what order they'd arrange around revenue and spending, or whether they'd just borrow and borrow again.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I don't think that's what the Queens speech ever does, that's what the new budget will do.

That should set out what they are doing, it might not set out what they're aiming to do and what will inform that. Both main parties having found a magic money tree failed to set out what order they'd arrange around revenue and spending, or whether they'd just borrow and borrow again.

Are you expecting a personalised letter or something?