[Archived] Election

[thenodrog]

Liam Fox "a broken 13th century state"........lovely people the country elected. Just two weeks and the mask has slipped already.

The quote actually was "We are not in Afghanistan for the sake of the education policy in a broken 13th-century country. We are there so the people of Britain and our global interests are not threatened."I believe it referred to Afghanistan.

Yep I know. Wise words from the Defence Secretary?

Paul these are the words you used on the restaurant thread.... “Please read what is written rather than what you would like to believe was written”.

Hoisted by your own petard I'd suggest.

[jim mk2]

we now have a forward thinking government instead of a hotch-potch of idealists hell bent on cosying up to a failing PM.

This "forward thinking government" has got off to a good start by announcing that rail fares will continue to rise at above the rate of inflation despite its coalition partner the Lib Dems pledging in its manifesto to peg fares rises at below the rate of inflation. Meanwhile all the electrification projects and rail enhancement schemes announced by Lord Adonis, one of the few transport ministers in my lifetime who understands the railway and is pro-rail, are on "review" no doubt to be axed by a Tory party that is ideologically pro-road in the name of unnecessary public spending cuts.

The rest of the post is irrelevant and misses the point entirely but I wouldn't have expected anything less of a complete idiot.

The Tories in creating the privatised railway broke up British Rail into hundreds of companies and sold them off. There are now four levels of organisation in the industry, owning the infrastructure, the stations, track and signalling. At the next level are three companies set up to own and lease the rolling stock to companies and at the third level are the actual train operators who have bid for franchises. At one stage a total of 25 companies were operating passenger trains. A fourth group of firms is in charge of track renewal and maintenance.

The result of all these different companies doing work that used to be under one roof (BR) is that costs have soared (witness the ludicrous West Coast upgrade), and to pay for it, passenger fares have rocketed. Even the former Tory shadow transport spokesman, Chris Grayling, who might have made a good transport minister but has since been shunted to one side after a spat with Cameron, admitted that splitting the rail industry into track and train components was a mistake which had increased costs:

"We think, with hindsight, that the complete separation of track and train into separate businesses at the time of privatisation was not right for our railways. We think that the separation has helped push up the cost of running the railways - and hence fares - and is now slowing decisions about capacity improvements. Too many people and organisations are now involved in getting things done - so nothing happens. As a result, the industry lacks clarity about who is in charge and accountable for decisions."

Rail privatisation has been a disaster for the taxpayer, for passengers, and for the country. If just a fraction of the billions that has been thrown at the privatised industry has been given to cash-strapped BR, or even a privatised BR sold off in its entirety, the railway system would be in far better shape and be cheaper to run than it is today.

As an aside, it is also worth pointing out that the 1960s Beeching plan in which thousands of miles of lines and stations were ripped up was instigated by a Tory government and led by a Tory transport minister, Ernest Minister, who actually had vested interests in the road transport industry. Another candidate for HMP in my opinion. Most of those lines would have been very useful today and should never have closed. The Tories are no friends of the rail industry, as the country is about to discover again over the next few agonising years.

[thenodrog]

The rest of the post is irrelevant and misses the point entirely but I wouldn't have expected anything less of a complete idiot.

And there is the rub. To rudely classify a major customer who spends many thousands of pounds each month, who has tried to use the product on offer, who obviously has many valid complaints, as a complete idiot and then to take no heed of his grievancies about the system was the very attitude of BR and the associated politically agenda'd unions which in a nutshell is the reason that our railways are so poor today. I've heard many such horror stories about companies trying to utilise the railway's to despatch goods etc and falling back onto road transport in frustration. You may be telling lies to make a point Jim, Tris too possibly, but one thing is for sure history never does.

Just as an aside Jim as an obvious advocate of the nations train set how frequently do you use rail travel and approx how much do you spend in an average year on railway travel? You might like to answer this too Tris, by way of comaprison, on the amount that your old company could have spent with the railways in a given year.

btw some might opine that only a complete idot would confuse Earnest Marples with somebody called Earnest Minister.

[koi]

You're right Jim. I'll tell you what, give Labour 13 years in power and I've no doubt they'll sort it all out. I'm thinking 13 years would enough or would they need a bit longer Jim? There's one thing for sure, a Labour government would never privatise public jobs and work would they Jim? I mean, just imagine if, after say 13 years of Labour rule they'd privatised more jobs and work than Thatcher and Major out together, just imagine eh Jim! Thank god it's never going to happen.....

[jim mk2]

edit

btw some might opine that only a complete idot would confuse Earnest Marples with somebody called Earnest Minister.

My little faux pas. But then only a complete idiot wouldn't know the importance of being ERnest.

For your information, I use the railways at least 4 times a week so I know exactly how much it is costing. And I know how poor the privatised railway is.

[Tris]

This "forward thinking government" has got off to a good start by announcing that rail fares will continue to rise at above the rate of inflation

Inflation + 1% on regulated fares ... that's the policy which the Labour government chose, maintained, could have scrapped but didn't.

passenger fares have rocketed

Preston - London return, in 1987, 6 years before privatisation, the cheapest fare was 27 quid. I have the leaflet in front of me.

Preston - London return, today, 23 years later, the cheapest fare is 25 quid.

(Gallon of 4 star petrol in 1987 = £1.89

Gallon of unleaded today = £5.50)

As an aside, it is also worth pointing out that the 1960s Beeching plan in which thousands of miles of lines and stations were ripped up was instigated by a Tory government

Implemented, with vigour, by Labour. You can't rewrite history.

[jim mk2]

Inflation + 1% on regulated fares ... that's the policy which the Labour government chose, maintained, could have scrapped but didn't.

A policy constantly criticised by the Tories when in opposition which they have chosen to maintain now they are in power and overrule their coalition partner's stated aim of inflation minus 1 per cent.

Preston - London return, in 1987, 6 years before privatisation, the cheapest fare was 27 quid. I have the leaflet in front of me.

Preston - London return, today, 23 years later, the cheapest fare is 25 quid.

The difference between 1987 and today is that walk-on fares, which is most people's preferred option, are ludicrously expensive.

On average, walk-on fares compared to advanced fares are

From Birmingham 4.49 times more expensive

Bristol 4.72 times

Cardiff 5.04 times

Glasgow 4.77 times

London 5.10 times

Manchester 4.00 times etc etc

Get the picture ?

(Gallon of 4 star petrol in 1987 = £1.89

Gallon of unleaded today = £5.50)

The cost of motoring has fallen by 13 per cent in real terms since 1997, whilst the cost of rail fares has increased by 7 per cent. The relative costs, and the changes in costs, are what matters when people make choices about transport.

Implemented, with vigour, by Labour. You can't rewrite history.

The Beeching closure programme was instigated by the Tories because they are ideologically opposed to public transport and nationalised industries and because they wanted to help their sponsors and friends in the road haulage industry. The programme was impossible to reverse by the time Labour assumed power.

Britain has one of the most expensive rail systems in the world because of a botched Tory privatisation.

You can try rewriting history but your lies don't wash.

[Tris]

The difference between 1987 and today is that walk-on fares, which is most people's preferred option, are ludicrously expensive.

Britain has one of the most expensive rail systems in the world

4 out of 5 rail journeys are made on advance or discounted tickets, walk-on fares are therefore almost irrelevant. The proof is that rail passenger numbers have never been higher than they are today. It's a huge success.

Over the last 3 years I have made more than 400 long distance single rail journeys, usually to London, Glasgow or Edinburgh. Only one journey out of 400+ was a walk-on fare.

I also go out of my way to support the real innovators in the sector - the open access operators. When I can, I use Wrexham & Shropshire's service from London to the midlands and change trains to get back home. My next two trips south will be on Grand Central's new service from Halifax to Kings Cross, a quick hop over from Blackburn to Halifax and then a comfortable, passenger-focussed offering with free WiFi throughout down to London. It takes a bit longer but Virgin Trains don't need any help from me, and these open access operators deserve every success.

That sort of offering was unthinkable under BR. They were doing the opposite - stifling new opportunities for both passengers and freight. There is now an environment where anything is possible. Only someone blinded by ideology would fail to sing the praises of the current success of rail in this country.

[1864roverite]

Tris

It doesnt matter what figures and FACTS you can find to prove your story, Jimbo is such an ilk that he can never agree the truth. Being a staunch labourite, his life is governed by spin and spin alone.

If you said the sky is blue, its the Tories fault. If its raining, its the tories fault. If you want any excuse explaining by a labour supporter you will get the same old story, its the tories fault.

Did you not realise, Gordon Brown resigned and it was the tories fault

[Paul]

The quote actually was "We are not in Afghanistan for the sake of the education policy in a broken 13th-century country. We are there so the people of Britain and our global interests are not threatened."I believe it referred to Afghanistan.

Yep I know. Wise words from the Defence Secretary?

Paul these are the words you used on the restaurant thread.... “Please read what is written rather than what you would like to believe was written”.

Hoisted by your own petard I'd suggest.

What are you wittering on about now?

[colin]

I, and a number of my colleagues in the public service, are somewhat amazed/confused by the current onslaught against the public sector.

It was not the public sector that caused the recent financial collapse, but the greed for profit by the private banking sector who stretched themselves to unsustainable limits in their need for profit and personal bonuses. This was both in the USA & here in the UK

It took our money to stop the banks collapsing and taking all our savings and pensions into a great big black hole.

But it seems the blighters are still carrying on paying themselves vast amounts of salaries & bonuses even though they have patently failed in their jobs and the can will be carried by people who have assiduously got their heads down and got on with their jobs.

Very strange.

Perhaps "call me Dave" has got the same attitude as "Baron Mandelson, of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the County of Durham" (a title that even PG Wodehouse would have shied away from) in that "we are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich."

So, let's stuff the public sector. Yah!

[koi]

Unfortunately you have to look past the end of your nose Colin. Government is too big, has been for nine years. The last government got their sums seriously wrong resulting in fiscal drift. We are now faced with one of the biggest budget deficits in the developed world. I trust your answer to this is tax the rich, well I'm sorry to tell you it just doesn't work like that. I can't be bothered going into the in's and out's of how the global economy works because at the end of the day your interest is your own situation.

What we could do with is a big old gold reserve that we could use in an emergency (like now). If we had say, 300+ tons to sell we could get in the region of £12bn today, that would help. Unfortunately we don't have that because someone sold it all off for the ridiculous sum of £3bn and then invested the money in interest bearing accounts denominated in dollars, euros and yen. As we know the value of those assets has plummeted and the real truth is that those investments have lost nearly £9bn.

If you want to blame anyone blame the last government. It is because of them that the public sector is at risk, it's because of them small business is at risk, it's because of them taxation will rise for EVERYONE even the poorest. Labour are supposedly the friend of the public sector, that I'm afraid is absolute cr@p, they put the public sector at jeopardy.

[jim mk2]

4 out of 5 rail journeys are made on advance or discounted tickets, walk-on fares are therefore almost irrelevant. The proof is that rail passenger numbers have never been higher than they are today. It's a huge success.

. Only someone blinded by ideology would fail to sing the praises of the current success of rail in this country.

Walk-on fares are highly relevant for alot of people who don't know exactly when and where they need to travel. I would much prefer to use the train but often go by car because of the ludicrously high train fares. Booking in advance is also not an option for older people who are unable to use computers or cannot understand "customer service" operators in New Delhi. To say walk-on fares are irrelevant is silly and typical of the dismissive attitude of people who work in the rail industry and results in ridiculous situations like this. http://www.thisislon...train-travel.do If the train operating companies regard walk-on fares as "irrelevant" they should abolish them as many industry experts are urging them to do.

Passengers numbers are at record levels because of the booming economy under Labour. When the economy is doing well, so do the railways; twas ever thus in BR days. Britain's railways have the costiest fares in Europe ; our fares would have to be reduced by 20 per cent to be at the same level as the European average. Britain's railways are a shambolic mess ostensibly in private hands but unable to exist without public subsidy. Britain's railways are decades behind other European countries in the development of high-speed rail. The train operating companies are thieving swines with gestapo-like "revenue prptection officers" who try every trick in the book to screw as much money out of passengers (£10 a day car parking charges ?) while offering the worst possible service to save money (most restaurant cars have now been withdrawn). The freight companies merely steal traffic from each other and have a dismally low percentage of the total freight market compared with road. EWS even managed to lose the Royal Mail contract ! I say all this with sadness because I am a great supporter of the railways but unfortunately at present they are a national embarrassment. You should take your head out of the sand and read Christian Wolmar's book, Broken Rails: How Privitisation Wrecked Britain's Railways. Take your time though, because it has joined-up writing.

[tashor]

I, and a number of my colleagues in the public service, are somewhat amazed/confused by the current onslaught against the public sector.

It was not the public sector that caused the recent financial collapse, but the greed for profit by the private banking sector who stretched themselves to unsustainable limits in their need for profit and personal bonuses. This was both in the USA & here in the UK

It took our money to stop the banks collapsing and taking all our savings and pensions into a great big black hole.

But it seems the blighters are still carrying on paying themselves vast amounts of salaries & bonuses even though they have patently failed in their jobs and the can will be carried by people who have assiduously got their heads down and got on with their jobs.

Very strange.

Perhaps "call me Dave" has got the same attitude as "Baron Mandelson, of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the County of Durham" (a title that even PG Wodehouse would have shied away from) in that "we are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich."

So, let's stuff the public sector. Yah!

I work in the public sector......

Without the money generated by the private sector we could not exist..........

"Our" money is a misnomer..........

It is, of course, "their" money..........

Some people are so stupid that they do not undersand this..........

If the private sector fails then the public sector cannot be financed as well........

Any idiot knows this...........

What is the difference between amazement/confusion and stupidity???..............

A strong economy ( private sector ) allowed bRUIN to spend/spend/spend on the likes of me in the public sector........

Having abolished boom and bust for ever he also borrowed and borrowed to spend and spend on top of the huge revenue that the private sector was generating - mainly in the financial sector that bRUIN didn't regulate as the bankers' cocks were far too far down his stupid throat...........

Greed ( unregulated by R GORIEST LEADER ) led to the inevitable world banking collapse .........

Boom and bust was,unfortunately alive and well and coming our way..........

The level of the cuts now heading towards the public sector have been determined by the overspending/overborrowing of the Brown tipped Big bolloxed idiot that has just flounced off the national scene - still hailed by many as a financial genius !!!!!!!!!!!!

After a period of financial stability and economic growth we will, of course, get rid of the savage cutting toffee - nosed bearstuweards and start the whole unholy cycle yet again...............

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

.....and the likes of YOU colin will express amazement when it all goes pear shaped again and, yet again, the Nasty Posh Lot have to come and rescue us all over again.............

[thenodrog]

Walk-on fares are highly relevant for alot of people who don't know exactly when and where they need to travel. I would much prefer to use the train but often go by car because of the ludicrously high train fares. Booking in advance is also not an option for older people who are unable to use computers or cannot understand "customer service" operators in New Delhi. To say walk-on fares are irrelevant is silly and typical of the dismissive attitude of people who work in the rail industry and results in ridiculous situations like this. http://www.thisislon...train-travel.do If the train operating companies regard walk-on fares as "irrelevant" they should abolish them as many industry experts are urging them to do.

Passengers numbers are at record levels because of the booming economy under Labour. When the economy is doing well, so do the railways; twas ever thus in BR days. Britain's railways have the costiest fares in Europe ; our fares would have to be reduced by 20 per cent to be at the same level as the European average. Britain's railways are a shambolic mess ostensibly in private hands but unable to exist without public subsidy. Britain's railways are decades behind other European countries in the development of high-speed rail. The train operating companies are thieving swines with gestapo-like "revenue prptection officers" who try every trick in the book to screw as much money out of passengers (£10 a day car parking charges ?) while offering the worst possible service to save money (most restaurant cars have now been withdrawn). The freight companies merely steal traffic from each other and have a dismally low percentage of the total freight market compared with road. EWS even managed to lose the Royal Mail contract ! I say all this with sadness because I am a great supporter of the railways but unfortunately at present they are a national embarrassment. You should take your head out of the sand and read Christian Wolmar's book, Broken Rails: How Privitisation Wrecked Britain's Railways. Take your time though, because it has joined-up writing.

Right now lets go over this again cos I think I must be missing something........ You rail at the current inefficiency and malpractice of the railways but the LibTory arrangement has been in place less than a fortnight. Labour was in power with a massive majority for the preceding 13 years. How does that work then?

[Tris]

Booking in advance is also not an option for older people who are unable to use computers or cannot understand "customer service" operators in New Delhi. I would much prefer to use the train but often go by car

My parents are in their 70s, have no computer, no internet, don't speak to people in India, live in a tiny village ... but they manage to benefit from advance fares - they just speak to a human being at a station, and the human being sells them great value tickets. You stay in your car clogging up the roads Jim, the rest of the world is managing to use the railway which offers fantastic value travel.

The train operating companies are thieving swines with gestapo-like "revenue prptection officers" who try every trick in the book to screw as much money out of passengers

The TOCs offer the cheapest rail travel this country has ever known. If you don't have a ticket, tough sh!t. You are breaking the law. People who drive without tax and insurance are the scum of the earth, nobody complains if they are caught and made to pay.

(most restaurant cars have now been withdrawn).

Virgin serve a fabulous meal on all trains - any breakfast option you could want, and then a choice of 2 hot and 2 cold options for the rest of the day. All the open access operators have innovative menus, eg W&S where every ingredient is sourced from local suppliers on their route.

EWS even managed to lose the Royal Mail contract !

First GBRailfreight picked it up and are running it much more efficiently. DB Schenker (EWS was rebranded on 1.1.2009 - how far out of touch are you??) have bigger fish to fry.

I say all this with sadness because I am a great supporter of the railways but unfortunately at present they are a national embarrassment. You should take your head out of the sand and read Christian Wolmar's book, Broken Rails: How Privitisation Wrecked Britain's Railways. Take your time though, because it has joined-up writing.

I don't doubt that you are a great supporter of the railways. Amazingly I think we have lots of common ground on this subject, and if we spent an afternoon on the ELR there wouldn't be a bad moment. I annoy my boss by using rail to get to meetings in Paris, Amsterdam and even Milan. I dragged my better half to Krakow and Leverkusen on the train (and Rotterdam on the boat) to see the Rovers. I push so much freight from road to rail through my job - you're asking the wrong person to take head out of sand on this subject I'm afraid.

I read Wolmar every fortnight in the trade press so I know full well what his views are. He talks things up though - you don't. Try Wrexham & Shropshire, try GC, use the fantastic services on offer. Put your political bias away, and talk the railways up.

[colin]

Unfortunately you have to look past the end of your nose Colin. Government is too big, has been for nine years. The last government got their sums seriously wrong resulting in fiscal drift. We are now faced with one of the biggest budget deficits in the developed world. I trust your answer to this is tax the rich,

Koi, no not at all. You are confusing my (so far unstated) desire to tax the rich with my comment that the public sector is not to blame for the financial trouble the country is in.

As previously mentioned, the fragile national economy has been caused by the private sector - the financial sectors' greed for profits. It is our public money that has bailed them out.

It's not the NHS nor the Coastguard nor the National Air Traffic Control nor the School Crossing Patrol Union that has caused the national debt. It has been the greed and averice of the private sector, who have been saved by our money.

When I say our, it's mine too. It's yours too. It's saved everyone who has a few quid stashed away in The Royal Bank Of Scotland from losing everything they have while Fred Goodwin, who has F****d up strolls off with his millions in bonuses and salary & pension. He's not the only one.

I'm not a national budget financial genius, no doubt few of on here are, but I find it difficult to see why the greed and stupidity of the private sector should be repayed by people in the public sector who had no involvement in the problem.

Why don't we have a look at Fred Goodwin's accounts. Just for a start. Then just perhaps his mates who have stashed away £ millions. Let's see how many nurses and teachers we could afford if they paid their fair whack.

[Grabbi Graeme]

Ok so where do I start, I have worked on the railway for just over 20 years, I have done various jobs and I currently work for Virgin as a Train Manager.

I do think privitisation has been a success on some of the network, from the West Coast point of view passenger numbers have increased and advanced ticket sales are large, and being as I work on board trains and deal with tickets I can say I haven't noticed that it's only the young who buy advanced tickets.

The more expensive walk on tickets are mostly used by the businessman although I have noticed that since the recent financial problems that even some business's are using advanced tickets more.

Also there are railcards available as well for seniors, family and friends and a young person railcard, all of them giving a third off the price of tickets.

The WC main line has had a lot of money spent to upgrade it and increase line speed to 125 in a lot of places, the original plan was to increase the speed to 140 mph however Network Rail and the then Labour Goverment didn't want to pay for it.

The other side of a private railway is companies coming in to run a rail franchise and not realising how much it cost's, the East Coast being a prime example, Sea Conatainers and National Express have both had a go and failed, I do belive that Virgin are going to bid for the East Coast franchise as it is up for grabs again very soon.

The Labour goverment handed the Crosscountry franchise to Arriva after Virgin had built it up, unfortunatly for Arriva they put in such a cheap bid that once thay had control of the franchise they couldn't afford to run it and went back to the rail authority to ask for more money.

As for the revenue protection staff Jim, they do what they say on the tin, thats what they are there for, there is a lot of fare dodging and fraud that happens on the whole of the rail network, there are millions lost each year because of this.

[jim mk2]

Right now lets go over this again cos I think I must be missing something........ You rail at the current inefficiency and malpractice of the railways but the LibTory arrangement has been in place less than a fortnight. Labour was in power with a massive majority for the preceding 13 years. How does that work then?

See my previous post.

[jim mk2]

My parents are in their 70s, have no computer, no internet, don't speak to people in India, live in a tiny village ... but they manage to benefit from advance fares - they just speak to a human being at a station, and the human being sells them great value tickets. You stay in your car clogging up the roads Jim, the rest of the world is managing to use the railway which offers fantastic value travel. People don't see value "great value tickets" if you wish to travel on the day, which I usually do. I have no wish to make a 20-mile round trip the day before to book a ticket. As I stated previously, if the advance fares are so good and are seen within the industry as the "standard" (but not by the media which of course headlines the ridiculous walk-on fares that damage the rail industry) why don't the TOCs abolish walk-on fares ?

The TOCs offer the cheapest rail travel this country has ever known. If you don't have a ticket, tough sh!t. You are breaking the law. People who drive without tax and insurance are the scum of the earth, nobody complains if they are caught and made to pay. I have no problem with ticket inspectors who are checking tickets in a friendly and courteous manner but I do object to some of the mini-Hitlers enforcing every rule to the letter and making themselves thoroughly unpleasant. A case in point recently was the soldier returning from Afghanistan turfed off his train in Chesterfield for inadvertently having the wrong ticket.

Virgin serve a fabulous meal on all trains - any breakfast option you could want, and then a choice of 2 hot and 2 cold options for the rest of the day. All the open access operators have innovative menus, eg W&S where every ingredient is sourced from local suppliers on their route. Compare with the East Coast and East Anglia routes where restaurant cars have been withdrawn. Compare also with the total number of restaurant cars running now with the huge numbers running in BR days, when there was a real service available. Have you enjoyed freshly cooked kippers travelling between Perth and Inverness just as dawn is breaking over the Scottish Highlands ? I have, back in the 1970s, and it was magical. Now it's a Class 158 multiple unit without even a cup of coffee.

First GBRailfreight picked it up and are running it much more efficiently. DB Schenker (EWS was rebranded on 1.1.2009 - how far out of touch are you??) have bigger fish to fry. First GBR are running a few mail trains up and down the West Coast, just a fraction of the nationwide mail services run by BR. Places as far flung as Thurso, Aberystwyth, Penzance and Dover all had their own parcel and mail trains in BR days. GBR has so many "bigger fish to fry" its parent company has put it up for sale.

I don't doubt that you are a great supporter of the railways. Amazingly I think we have lots of common ground on this subject, and if we spent an afternoon on the ELR there wouldn't be a bad moment. I annoy my boss by using rail to get to meetings in Paris, Amsterdam and even Milan. I dragged my better half to Krakow and Leverkusen on the train (and Rotterdam on the boat) to see the Rovers. I push so much freight from road to rail through my job - you're asking the wrong person to take head out of sand on this subject I'm afraid. I love the ELR and all the preserved railways because they remind me of how the railways used to be. I have been a member of the SVR since 1973.

I read Wolmar every fortnight in the trade press so I know full well what his views are. He talks things up though - you don't. Try Wrexham & Shropshire, try GC, use the fantastic services on offer. Put your political bias away, and talk the railways up. I do talk the railways up if I can but I am not a fan of the privitised railway (and Wolmar certainly is not). Ask any old BR manager and they will shake their heads at the sums been wasted by the privitisation process. I read a report somewhere that if BR had been funded properly and handed the money thrown at the privitised railway the whole system would now be electrified, new stations opened and old stations and lines closed under Beeching brought back into use. The Tories got it badly wrong when the railways were privitised, and that's not political bias but a general consensus of people who know far more about it than I do.

[jim mk2]

Brilliant news. Hurrah for the Con - Dems coalition !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/7756596/Coalition-considers-plan-to-sell-off-Britains-roads.html

I've been advoacting this for years. Private transport (roads) should be in private hands; public transport (railways) should be in public hands.

[koi]

Since when has the cost of something held a labour government back? Just borrow it, who cares tomorrow never comes....

[Rover Down Under]

I'm sure you do hate debating politics because if you came up with half that rubbish in a real life conversation anyone with half a brain would absolutely destroy your arguments. In an internet forum setting it's a lot easier to come out with turdbursts like that relatively unchallenged, or to ignore the bits where people challenge you. For a start you equate New Labour and the US Democrats with the left when in fact they're at the very most centrist parties, whilst some might argue the Democrats if judged purely on policies rather than judged relative to their peers are probably about as left wing as the Tory party in this country.

1. The left are not fascists. Let's have a look at one definition of fascism.

Quote

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism. In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety. They advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.

Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated. They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.

Now, I would not be so brain dead to label the Tory party as fascist; they clearly are not. However, how many of these apply to the left? Well..New Labour did participate in wars (much opposed by the actual left) but then this was supported by the Tories and the wars were instigated by a strong right wing force in the Republican party.

Hang on...I haven’t finished yet...

11. The complete inability to take absolutely everything they hear and read as anything other than the absolute literal sense;

It is blatantly obvious to, almost, everyone reading that the "fascist" label was not in reference to their position on the political spectrum (which is outdated, incorrect and irrelevant anyway) but to their attitude and behaviour. However, just to take a few key words from the fascism quote:

“collective national society and its state”

“rejects individualism”

“integrated collective community”

“resist autonomy”

“consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation”

These are terms that could apply to Labour and certainly the left in general.

I think you'll find the later parts of that paragraph most analagous to our British National Party or the Nazi party - far right organisations.

So whilst I'm not as much of an idiot as you to label Labour or the Tories as fascist, it's quite clear those are very much far right ideologies and that if one was closer to the fascist side of things, it would have to be the Tories.

Let’s take a breather and have a little game of ‘fill in the blanks’ shall we:

The acronym NAZI, in the English translation, stands for:

National S_____i_t German Workers' Party

Hint: the answer is not ‘h’ but contains the letters o.c.i.a.l. and .s

Celebrating Xmas is NOT practically illegal by the way, comments like this are the hallmark of the moron. The last time I checked Xmas banners were going up earlier and earlier every year to the point where I'm surprised they're not even up now.

12. The ability to completely overlook what has been staring them blatantly in the face for the past 13 years and throwing the spotlight onto something only marginally related in order to obfuscate a valid argument.

Last time I checked the practice of PC was alive and well, remember the Red Cross banning decorations? Or how about “Winterval” or “The Festival of Lights”... just to name a few?

2. Yes, you can trace the global financial crisis all the way back to one man. It's THAT simple. It's not remotely a highly complex and multifactorial situation that requires people with more complex critical faculties than you've just demonstrated to understand. If what Clinton did what so OBVIOUSLY going to result in a global financial crisis, then why didn't that bastion of right wing politics George W Bush or any of his economic advisers do something to rectify the situation in the 7 years he had before it all hit the fan? I'm not saying what Clinton is blameless or even that his actions were the best thing, but poor policies are found on both the right and the left. And the light touch regulation of the banks that the right (and New Labour) favour? No no, blame it all on the left...

13. The complete inability to understand that the buck can and does stop with 1 man.

Yes, it was a multifactorial situation but of ALL the factors there is and was only ONE factor that started it all. Remove any one of the other factors and it would have made little or no difference. Remove the one factor - that the whole shenanigans was started by a foolish social-engineer and a party obsessed with multi-culturalism and political correctness (sound familiar?) and none of it would have happened. It was OBVIOUS as early as 1999 that things were going to go wrong:

“Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

‘From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,’ said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ‘If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'”

(NY Times Sept 30th 1999) – Yes read that date – NINETEEN NINETY NINE

From: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

Here’s another quote for you:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

As said by JOHN McCAIN (Rep.) in 2005.

Both Bush and McCain and a few other congressmen tried to alter and REGULATE how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were run and their financing. McCain cosponsored the bill but it was blocked by the party that dreamt up the foolish idea in the first place.

3. The Tories don't lie at all, do they? Every political party from every part of the spectrum lies. And only the left employs spin doctors? Really? Look up the name Steve Hilton. Spin doctors are a modern creation due to the exponential expansion of the media over the last twenty years. It just so happened that Labour came into power when this all going on - the Tories don't employ spin any less than Labour do and no previous Labour government before New Labour employed spin doctors. Another bit of absolute rubbish.

Quote from my original post: “Yes politicians lie”

Thanks for backing me up there, never denied the Tories or anyone else lied or employed spin doctors, just that Labour do it to a far greater extent and, sadly, far more successfully.

To borrow a quote from a previous post;

“Please read what is written rather than what you would like to believe was written”.

14. The ability to contradict points they have previously made:

For a start you equate New Labour and the US Democrats with the left when in fact they're at the very most centrist parties, whilst some might argue the Democrats if judged purely on policies rather than judged relative to their peers are probably about as left wing as the Tory party in this country.

…

The funny thing about your post is that you make the fundamental mistake of equating New Labour with a left wing government

…

4. Labour/left wing politics is the politics of envy is it? Is that why there's numerous billionaires who are staunch Labour supporters/Democrats in the US?

Well…which is it then? They’re left, they’re right, they’re centre, you do the hokey pokey and then you turn around…it’s enough to make anyone dizzy.

I know there are “numerous” (ambiguous word) billionaires who are lefties yet I reckon some of them advertise it just for good PR as years of leftist tarring of the right as a party out to destroy the working class has left them little choice. Then we have the phenomenon otherwise known as CHAMPAGNE SOCIALISTS. And like the CS’s in the Labour Party I find their attitude to the working class to be arrogant and disrespectful. Of the remainder, it probably hasn’t occurred to you yet, they support Labour because much more of the money that goes to the Government (as a portion and proportion) ends up in the hands of the rich and politically connected, why bite the hand that feeds them? I have very little respect and a great deal of mistrust for rich Labour supporters than I do for rich Tory ones. The worst ones are the ones that pretend to have some degree of sympathy for the working class whilst simultaneously grabbing the handouts they are offered by the party they so generously donated too.

The vast majority of the left (except for the nutcases) would never advocate 100% tax on anyone so stop coming out with such @#/?.

Refer to point 11. The point was hypothetical. And to quote once again;

“Please read what is written rather than what you would like to believe was written”.

[Rover Down Under]

…..ooohhh, wait….more…coming, just squeezing my “turdburst” out…

Your definitions of "class", if used in the traditional British sense, are also massively confused.

The middle and the working class both keep society turning - the working class are essential in the "blue collar" jobs required to keep our society running, whereas the middle class include the professionals and people including your boss who may be enormously wealthy but in England at least is still considered middle class, unless he is astronomically wealthy (ie at least in the tens-hundreds of millions), or born into the upper class. Upper class comprises either of the astronomically wealthy or, more commonly, the landed gentry and descendents of noblemen who have inherited fortunes and barely need to work.

What exactly do they contribute to this country? Most sensible people on the left wing argue that someone earning £1 million a year isnt 50 times more talented or 50 times more hard working than someone earning £20,000 a year (unless compared across a similar profession maybe).

15. The annoying habit of applying their own definitions to another persons words and then using said definitions to undermine an argument.

Since I didn’t use “class” in the “traditional British sense” I guess responding is pointless. I go by the accepted economic defintion, ie. those that pay in the highest tax bracket, rather than a definition more suitable to the Victorian era.

Hang on, how can they ‘earn’ anything when they” barely need to work”? I would also counter argue that Joe Bludger living on 12 grand in benefits, for 0 hours work, is not two thirds as talented and certainly doesn’t work two thirds as hard as Joe Smith and his white collar 18 grand net and 2000 hours a year job.

Therefore setting a new tax rate for them - such as this 50% rate - still leaves them with huge fortunes to take home but takes off a little more and helps to improve our hospitals and schools so maybe kids who weren't born into money will have a decent start in life.

Compare that to the Oxford English Dictionary definition for "envy" and get back to me.

I agree, tax the rich more but not so much as to make it pointless for them to work, squeeze those below them harder or worse still pack their bags and leave. Lefties still haven’t figured this one out either – the more you hit the rich the more you hurt the economy and who gets hurt the most in a downturn? NOT THE RICH.

And there we go with the definitions again. Sorry, I didn’t realise Labour wrote and owned the Oxford English Dictionary, must confess I’m surprised they would use something as elitist as to contain the name “Oxford”.

If you look at which countries in Europe are consistently ranked around the top for their school systems, it's the Scandinavian countries which are far more left wing than we are.

16. The complete inability of the left to apply their own arguments…to their own arguments.

Surely a countries language, culture, economy, history all combine to influence their education system. Is this not also “a highly complex and multifactorial situation that requires people with more complex critical faculties to understand”?

I notice you don’t mention Japan, consistently the best results for decades and their Government, until recently, was incredibly right-wing and school system bordering on Fascist.

6. None of the parties is trying to force equality. I agree with your point about Communism, however surely providing public money for universal access to good schools, education and, for those who can't afford it, housing is far more likely to make sure one group doesnt have this advantage?

I’m quite sure hard working families who are struggling to pay the mortgage whilst watching layabouts get free housing, benefits handouts, etc couldn’t agree more that one group should not have the advantages they are denied. More to the point I’m fairly certain the Tories never denied public money for universal access to good schools, education and housing. They never abolished public schools unlike the bitter lefties who have been hell bent on abolishing Grammar Schools for decades, despite the fact they actually offer greater social mobility and education for those that can’t afford it but are bright enough. But, hey that would make things meritocratic and we can’t have that can we?

The United States as a country spends 16% of its' GDP on a healthcare system rated by the WHO as significantly worse than here where we spend 8% of our GDP. Remind me again which party were the architects of the NHS? If we left it up to the Tories we'd have ended up with a similar situation to our friends across the pond. Just because individual bad decisions have occured it doesn't mean the whole system is to blame.

To remind (educate) you which party were the architects of the NHS and to put to bed your misconceived and sadly widespread, notion that it was the Labour Party who dreamt it all it was actually the idea of ALL the political parties at the time. Labour just happened to be in power when the Act was passed - it had been agreed on for a long time by all but was put on hold by the War. Just to further grind your illusion to dust it was actually Willink and Brown, a Conservative and Liberal who laid all the groundwork and contributed most of the ideas to the NHS including the White Paper. Goodnight.

9. You haven't really demonstrated this. Still I'm sure the scores of people a hell of a lot brighter than you are who have voted for left wing parties (I include myself in this bracket, more as a comment on your apparent intelligence than my own) will be enlightened by your views.

Allow me to demonstrate the fact that I probably have more letters after my name than you have in your given name. That’s a: BA, MA, Grad Dip, MSc (yes, that’s TWO Masters degrees, science and arts - one for each of my half brain) with a second MSc to follow sometime next year, when I can be arsed to finish it.

Enlightened is a good choice of words actually, I lived in the dark, blind to reality, once. Then I saw the light – I can sum it up in a few short words – SOCIALISM EXACERBATES THE VERY PROBLEMS IT TRIES TO SOLVE. I’ll be very glad if you can spread the message and enlighten those “scores” of people, I’d hate to think they weren’t bright enough to work it out for themeselves. On that note:

17. The arrogant and supercilious manner in which anyone who disagrees with them, highlights their shortcomings or questions what they really stand for is branded a:

half a brain

…

brain dead

…

an idiot

…

moron

…

a bit simple

…

or accused of writing:

Another bit of absolute rubbish

…

stop coming out with such @#/?

…

that rubbish

…

turdbursts

Lets pick out some of those points from the fascist quotation again:

“forbid and suppress openness and opposition”

“reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated”

Funny thing – the National SOCIALIST (in case you hadn’t figured it out yet) German Workers Party used to gas people who opposed their ideology under the pretence that they were brain dead or a bit simple.

The Tories were going to get in again some time, but I'm a little relieved that at least we have a party who will temper their most Thatcherite tendencies. The funny thing about your post is that you make the fundamental mistake of equating New Labour with a left wing government. They were at the most centrist. They had some good points (the minimum wage, the improvements in the NHS on waiting lists and thousands more doctors/nurses) but also some bad points. However many of these bad points (underregulation of the financial system, spending billions on unnecessary wars) are things which either the Tories supported or policies synonymous with a Tory government. It's that which makes me worry about the next five years and hopefully will make the Labour Party find their true identity again.

God help us if they do find their “true identity” again. It was bad enough when they were pretending to be a centrist party, not that I think they will ever find their true identity again – they can’t even agree on what it has been for the past 13 years!

If you want to end poverty, end inequality, end injustice TGM, open your eyes and show the intelligence you claim to possess, you might want to start by joining the 21st Century.

[SouthAussieRover]

RoverDownUdder:

As a relatively new arrival to the shores of Australia, you are well advised not to confuse the ideologies and achievements

(or lack of) of the Tories in the UK with the Liberal party here.