Britain Better Connected: Labour's Transport Policy Review

[CarterUSM]

It should also be noted that including a quarter of the island of Ireland and colouring it with a British flag is quite offensive to Irish nationalists and something I would not expect the Labour party to be doing.

Offensive? More offensive than a bombing campaign by "irish nationalists" spanning 3 odd decades. Turn it up.

 

[SS4]

at risk of being ignorant. how do we as a nation let them get away with saying stuff in a manifesto then fortgetting about it everytime people go into power? how can we allow it.

What choice do we have? Calling another election will give us much the same result.

 

[Zoe]

Offensive? More offensive than a bombing campaign by "irish nationalists" spanning 3 odd decades. Turn it up.

The IRA do not represent all Irish nationalists any more than Al-Qaeda represent all Muslims. Violence is not the solution and should never be tolerated. The future or Ireland should be resolved politically.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The IRA do not represent all Irish nationalists any more than Al-Qaeda represent all Muslims. Violence is not the solution and should never be tolerated.

Removing the Union flag from Northern Ireland would offend the Loyalists though, and, let's face it, it is correct.

 

[YorkshireBear]

deleted

 

[radamfi]

Leaving off Northern Ireland would have made the most sense as transport is more devolved from the UK than Scotland or Wales. Northern Ireland have NIR, which is not privatised, buses are not deregulated, tendered or privatised and they have their own Roads Service. Like Wales and Scotland, transport has been devolved to its own executive. They even get the Republic of Ireland to pay for major road schemes! Unlike Scotland and Wales, Labour don't participate in party politics so even if they had ideas for devolved governments it would not apply there.

 

[Zoe]

i know they all do it, so yes theres more than one party, but they all do it.

How do you know this? There have only ever been three parties that have held power in the last hundred years.

 

[bluenoxid]

Coming March 21...

http://www.britainbetterconnected.org.uk/Britain_Better_Connected/Under_Construction.html

Labour's Transport Policy Review
Britain Better Connected

A clean slate under Maria Eagle.

We shall wait until that day.

Either that or very shiny bogroll :roll:

 

[Zoe]

not argueing or discussing it.

If you make a sweeping statement and then refuse to back it up with evidence then it is not valid.

 

[bluenoxid]

I can show you why your opinions are wrong if I want to. No opinion cannot be debated against or shown to be wrong in certain circumstances.

You are at university and not taking the **** are you because it is this kind of thinking that should be going through your head if you want to be a vital part of the labour market post graduation? A closed mind shows a lack of leadership potential and the failure to understand concepts that fast moving businesses requires its graduates to implement.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I can show you why your opinions are wrong if I want to. No opinion cannot be debated against or shown to be wrong in certain circumstances.

You are at university and not taking the **** are you because it is this kind of thinking that should be going through your head if you want to be a vital part of the labour market post graduation? A closed mind shows a lack of leadership potential and the failure to understand concepts that fast moving businesses requires its graduates to implement.

Or instead i am currently watching the football and doing a report and dont want to enter a political debate on here. I fail to see where at not even 20 not fully understanding polotics is a sign i am unemplyable? please back off

 

[bluenoxid]

For anyone reading this a bit confused, he has just deleted the post that I was responding to.

 

[YorkshireBear]

For anyone reading this a bit confused, he has just deleted the post that I was responding to.

that wasn't because im trying to disprove you or anything, they were unrelated to the article were wrong and i was getting stick for them. hence removed them.

 

[tbtc]

Northern Ireland have NIR, which is not privatised,

Out of interest, have journeys increased by much on NIR over the past fifteen years (to allow us a comparison with a similar increase in Great Britain's privatised railways)?

For anyone trotting out the "Labour bankrupted the economy" line, they should realise that National Debt (as a proportion of GDP, which is the only fair way to measure it) was lower under most of Labour's thirteen years in power than the debt they inherited from the Tories in 1997 (42.3%).

Labour had a Surplus in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 and paid off some debts (something the Tories hadn't done since 1989).

In fact, even at the start of 2008 debt was lower under Labour than they inherited from the Tories*. Then the banks blew up and things went horribly wrong - I make no excuses/ apologies for this problem. But to pretend that Labour were reckless with spending for so long ignores the sound economic management that they had for ten years (then ruined in the last few years). By all means criticise the 2008 - 2010 problems (I know I do... ), but it's disingenuous to claim that they were reckless throughout their period in office.

 

[Invincibles]

Out of interest, have journeys increased by much on NIR over the past fifteen years (to allow us a comparison with a similar increase in Great Britain's privatised railways)?

For anyone trotting out the "Labour bankrupted the economy" line, they should realise that National Debt (as a proportion of GDP, which is the only fair way to measure it) was lower under most of Labour's thirteen years in power than the debt they inherited from the Tories in 1997 (42.3%).

Labour had a Surplus in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 and paid off some debts (something the Tories hadn't done since 1989).

In fact, even at the start of 2008 debt was lower under Labour than they inherited from the Tories*. Then the banks blew up and things went horribly wrong - I make no excuses/ apologies for this problem. But to pretend that Labour were reckless with spending for so long ignores the sound economic management that they had for ten years (then ruined in the last few years). By all means criticise the 2008 - 2010 problems (I know I do... ), but it's disingenuous to claim that they were reckless throughout their period in office.

And anyone wishing to discuss economics should first begin with a basic definition of the Boom and Bust that Brown so beautifully ended...

The emergence of the private credit bubble prolonged growth after 2005 when it should have been deflated, this was not sound economic management either.

So that just leaves us with the 8 years, of which most were spent sticking to Tory spending plans, so actually what you find is that Labour were reasonably good at managing the economy when it was doing well and not causing anyone any headaches.

But anyway, it is nice there are at least 2 sides to each story

 

[LE Greys]

* Disclaimer: Mojo is a member of the Conservative Party

Two words: New Labour.

Two More: Lord Adonis

Two more words: John Prescott
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And anyone wishing to discuss economics should first begin with a basic definition of the Boom and Bust that Brown so beautifully ended...

The emergence of the private credit bubble prolonged growth after 2005 when it should have been deflated, this was not sound economic management either.

So that just leaves us with the 8 years, of which most were spent sticking to Tory spending plans, so actually what you find is that Labour were reasonably good at managing the economy when it was doing well and not causing anyone any headaches.

But anyway, it is nice there are at least 2 sides to each story

The basic problem was Brown's "Golden Rule", borrowing only to invest. The real rule should have been a year-on-year reduction in borrowing. Possibly also the creation of a Sovereign Wealth Fund (using the remnants of North Sea oil revenue, or as much as we can tax from it). Actually, the "investment" in the Millennium Dome would have been much better going into that fund. Yes, it's true that debt was down, but a reserve fund would have been very useful in terms of avoiding the need to make sharp cuts then rebuild.

The private credit bubble was not so serious earlier on, but it started way before 2005. I would say back in the 1960s with the introduction of the credit card (I still refuse to get one). The housing bubble is another concern, and that started back in the 1970s. Both of those might have been controllable in a non-globalised market, but we can't really make credit cards and mortgages illegal (much as I would like to).

 

[Zoe]

credit card (I still refuse to get one).

The thing is though if you don't have a credit card then it counts against you on your credit score. This is not helpful when you get refused tenancies/mortgages/other contracts based on this.

 

[tbtc]

And anyone wishing to discuss economics should first begin with a basic definition of the Boom and Bust that Brown so beautifully ended...

The emergence of the private credit bubble prolonged growth after 2005 when it should have been deflated, this was not sound economic management either.

So that just leaves us with the 8 years, of which most were spent sticking to Tory spending plans, so actually what you find is that Labour were reasonably good at managing the economy when it was doing well and not causing anyone any headaches.

But anyway, it is nice there are at least 2 sides to each story

This may surprise you, but I agree with much of what you've said. Whilst the banking crisis was "global", Labour are partly responsible for the way that people were encouraged to keep loading debt onto their credit cards (because the Daily Mail said that house prices were guaranteed to keep going up and up...) - the people themselves are responsible too of course.

However, as with all economics, the truth is complicated. Debt was 26% of GDP in 1991, it was 42.5% of GDP in May 1997 (at the election), yet nobody claims the Tories can't be trusted. Debt came down under Labour to 29.1% in February 2002 then started rising again. Sadly no political party comes out of the story "spotless", there are good and bad stories to each.

To argue that "debt went up under Labour" (as some have on this thread) is too simplistic. What worries me is that (by the next election) the Coalition will have sold the bank shares that Labour had to purchase, possibly made a profit on them and will claim that the reduction in national debt is entirely down to their financial genius - a simplistic reading of the situation but one which people may fall for...

Anyhow, to get back onto transport, despite being a big critic of the Coalition's economic policies, I have to admit that they deserve a lot of credit for continuing to invest in rail in their tough times. It'd have been easy to do no more than Crossrail/Thameslink (and a slimmed down version of each), but the news that they are investing in HS2/ Thames Valley/ Bristol/Cardiff/ Blackpool etc deserves a lot of credit. Will be interesting to see whether they treat new franchises differently to the last Government.

 

[Zoe]

This may surprise you, but I agree with much of what you've said. Whilst the banking crisis was "global", Labour are partly responsible for the way that people were encouraged to keep loading debt onto their credit cards (because the Daily Mail said that house prices were guaranteed to keep going up and up...) - the people themselves are responsible too of course.

Don't you think the bankers are also responsible by their reckless lending policies or should the government have regulated them?

 

[radamfi]

Out of interest, have journeys increased by much on NIR over the past fifteen years (to allow us a comparison with a similar increase in Great Britain's privatised railways)?

http://www.railwaystrategies.co.uk/article-page.php?contentid=11336&issueid=346

says that passengers in NI went up 60% from 2002. Article was written in 2010 so probably it probably refers to around that time.

NIR has had a complete transformation with new trains and better and faster track. It was on the brink of closure in the 90s but now is considered a great success. I have personally experienced overcrowding several times on trips there in the last few years.

 

[route:oxford]

Don't you think the bankers are also responsible by their reckless lending policies or should the government have regulated them?

Every individual and company who took out new borrowing between 2001 and 2007 *because they could* has responsibility.

 

[Greenback]

Every individual and company who took out new borrowing between 2001 and 2007 *because they could* has responsibility.

The banks were like parents who allowed their children too many sweeties. You can't blame the children for not knowing enough to say no.

 

[scotsman]

Also Salmond for years said he would regulate buses. Has that happened yet?

Does Souter donating money to the SNP have any relevance?

No. And undoubtedly. I'm actually a semi-member of the local community council and I've seen the number of local bus services which are subsidised and which are commercial. 85% commercial.:cry:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Disclaimer - I thought you were a Labour man...

Indeed, a member in fact. But that's how you play party politics, don't give your own viewpoint - just criticise the others!

 

[Zoe]

The banks were like parents who allowed their children too many sweeties. You can't blame the children for not knowing enough to say no.

Worse than just allowing, they were basically holding the sweeties right in front of the children knowing that most wouldn't refuse them. Anyone remember the amount of loan adverts on the TV a few years back?

 

[LE Greys]

Worse than that, they were basically holding the sweeties right in front of the children knowing that most wouldn't refuse them.

But who was letting them get away with it?

The real answer is to allow the UN to form an international regulator to control these international businesses. Then they can't run off to tax havens and poorly regulated countries, the UN could track them down and keep them in order.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The thing is though if you don't have a credit card then it counts against you on your credit score. This is not helpful when you get refused tenancies/mortgages/other contracts based on this.

It's bad enough having to borrow £18,000 just to go through university. I'm not going to go around spending someone else's money just to get my credit score up.

 

[Greenback]

Yes, I used to get offers of a loan through the post almost every day. I never took one out, but I can understand why some people did. People like my brother, who over burdened himself with debt! I blame him to a certain extent, as I believe he took on so much debt that it was unfeasible even at the height of the credit boom!

 

[Zoe]

It's bad enough having to borrow £18,000 just to go through university. I'm not going to go around spending someone else's money just to get my credit score up.

I agree but it just shows that the system is a bit stupid where if you've never have any credit it counts against you.

 

[Greenback]

I didn't know that, and it does show that the system is stupid! You cna learn a lot on this forum...!

 

[tbtc]

http://www.railwaystrategies.co.uk/article-page.php?contentid=11336&issueid=346

says that passengers in NI went up 60% from 2002. Article was written in 2010 so probably it probably refers to around that time.

NIR has had a complete transformation with new trains and better and faster track. It was on the brink of closure in the 90s but now is considered a great success. I have personally experienced overcrowding several times on trips there in the last few years.

That's very interesting. I was thinking that rise in NI should be used as a benchmark to assess whether much of the rise in British passenger numbers "would have happened regardless of privitisation". However, the investment in NIR may mean that hard to claim it as a fair benchmark.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The banks were like parents who allowed their children too many sweeties. You can't blame the children for not knowing enough to say no.

You can't blame children, no, but the grown ups who signed up for these credit cards/ took out these loans/ naively assumed that house prices only ever went up... should hold their hands up too.

Bankers and politicians are to blame (as are journalists who kept telling us how rising house prices meant we were all richer), but we need some personal responsibility in this country, we need to learn that there is no such thing as "free" money (even if politicians etc want to pretend).

 

[w1bbl3]

However, as with all economics, the truth is complicated. Debt was 26% of GDP in 1991, it was 42.5% of GDP in May 1997 (at the election), yet nobody claims the Tories can't be trusted. Debt came down under Labour to 29.1% in February 2002 then started rising again. Sadly no political party comes out of the story "spotless", there are good and bad stories to each.

To argue that "debt went up under Labour" (as some have on this thread) is too simplistic. What worries me is that (by the next election) the Coalition will have sold the bank shares that Labour had to purchase, possibly made a profit on them and will claim that the reduction in national debt is entirely down to their financial genius - a simplistic reading of the situation but one which people may fall for...

To continue this point even talking about debt as percentage of GDP can be somewhat simplistic as GDP is not a fixed number. IIRC between 97 and 02 GDP grew by 33% so what we are really talking about isn't debt reducing but rather growing slower than the economy. National debt hasn't actually gone down in real terms since WWII just in some periods grown slower than the wider economy.

Going back to rail issues as you note refranchising will be interesting an interesting test to see what the current administration does differently. IMHO premium payments, cap and collar, ROSCO fee's and infrastructure co-payments all need to be addressed in the next batch of franchises.

The fundamental question is I suppose are railways a public service or commercial venture..