Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[JamesT]

I'm not sure that it does, as that would mean (given that about 40% of the network is electrified) that almost no one uses (for example) the northern section of the MML and the B&H lines, as 80% of passenger use would be on the busiest 50% of electrified routes.

For example if we took London and Southeast as the busiest part of the network that's roughly a one third/two thirds split in terms if passenger numbers across rail sectors, however I'd be surprised if it had less than 30% of the track miles.

In terms of station usage that's likely to be true, however if you cut out 80% of stations you certainly wouldn't be left with 80% of the traffic, as people going to those very busy stations have to come from somewhere.

There is the oft-quoted statistic that 70% of train journeys in the UK involve London. That's a lot of the rest of the country to spread the other 30% over. If you consider the relative size and frequency of trains, where around London it's a 12 carriage train every 5 minutes versus a 2 carriage train once an hour, it's entirely believable that some parts of the network see comparatively few passengers.

Network Rail's About Us page says they maintain 20,000 miles of track. Their description of their Southern Region says 3,300 miles of track. So that's a sixth from South of London. I'm not sure what you'd count as London and the Southeast, the Home Counties North of London as well? But it isn't implausible that it's less than a third of the track miles in the UK.

 

[Snow1964]

There is the oft-quoted statistic that 70% of train journeys in the UK involve London. That's a lot of the rest of the country to spread the other 30% over.

This statistic is rather bending the truth, unless you include large numbers of London suburban stations.

Handily there are station usage statistics (although they are couple of years out of date), and if you add up the stations deemed London terminals for ticketing purposes (think there are 16) as fraction of all station entry and exits (divided by 2, to give journeys without double counting start and end) it is nowhere near 70% of 990million journeys

Estimates of station usage | Office of Rail and Road

www.orr.gov.uk

 

[takno]

I'm not sure that it does, as that would mean (given that about 40% of the network is electrified) that almost no one uses (for example) the northern section of the MML and the B&H lines, as 80% of passenger use would be on the busiest 50% of electrified routes.

For example if we took London and Southeast as the busiest part of the network that's roughly a one third/two thirds split in terms if passenger numbers across rail sectors, however I'd be surprised if it had less than 30% of the track miles.

In terms of station usage that's likely to be true, however if you cut out 80% of stations you certainly wouldn't be left with 80% of the traffic, as people going to those very busy stations have to come from somewhere.

It's a well-established fact about the pareto principle that only 80% or cited examples are within 20% of meeting the criteria

 

[AM9]

If you consider the relative size and frequency of trains, where around London it's a 12 carriage train every 5 minutes versus a 2 carriage train once an hour, it's entirely believable that some parts of the network see comparatively few passengers.

That's a significant exaggeration of services "around London". The main commuter routes (GA, TL, SWR Southern and SE) might have some services arriving like that during the peak, there are also plenty of 8-car services, GN TL, GWE, and 4/5-car trains as well, e.g. Chiltern, EMR and the whole of the Overground network.

 

[nlogax]

Back on topic, Kuenssberg's interview of Sunak this morning was a completely expected waste of time. As is the standard politician's tack these days his responses were non-answers and just sticking to his major talking points. Non committal on pretty much everything. The only difference I detected was a slight bolshiness which I'm sure will appeal to one or two angry Tory voters who feel that their chap in charge shouldn't have to answer to anything. Absolutely pointless.

 

[GWVillager]

It's not ridiculous - the railway follows the Pareto principle in that 20% of the lines carry 80% of the traffic.

Whether or not this is true (and I find it almost unbelievable), that's still 289 million journeys annually spread around the country. That's not pitiful by any means, and certainly isn't enough to justify mass closures, especially when you consider the fact that this is likely stifled by the pandemic, strikes, poor service etc.

 

[317 forever]

Gove is a weasel

Had he run for leader, at least after the fall of Liz Truss, he could have got in as a caretaker Prime Minister ahead of a defeat next year.

Then Rishi Sunak could have become leader of a Conservative opposition, led them to victory in 2028/29 and been PM for longer than is now looking likely. Still, taking over when he did was almost inevitably a poisoned chalice.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2023 ==

Which it, of course, isn't! Uxbridge didn't go Tory because ULEZ is a climate-related issue and they couldn't give a mite about climate; the anti-ULEZ campaign that swayed Uxbridge was about the financial impact ULEZ expansion would have, if I recall correctly.

If Sunak is seriously as dim as he seems to be - i.e. thinks that scrapping his green targets and promoting the car worked in Uxbridge and will work countrywide - then I'd rather have Kermit the Frog and his puppet government. At least we'd have a more intelligent muppet in charge.

If we did have Kermit the Frog as Prime Minister, we would have a green Prime Minister

 

[Railsigns]

If we did have Kermit the Frog as Prime Minister, we would have a green Prime Minister

Although he wouldn't be the first prime minister to have had relations with a pig.

 

[Purple Train]

If we did have Kermit the Frog as Prime Minister, we would have a green Prime Minister

Boom boom... oh, sorry, that's Basil Brush isn't it!

Didn't he have short-ish odds for PM at one point?

 

[Gloster]

Boom boom... oh, sorry, that's Basil Brush isn't it!

Didn't he have short-ish odds for PM at one point?

Yes, but that was only to lead a puppet government.

 

[Purple Train]

Yes, but that was only to lead a puppet government.

Presumably with "Mr Derek" among the ranks of the civil servants...?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This statistic is rather bending the truth, unless you include large numbers of London suburban stations.

Handily there are station usage statistics (although they are couple of years out of date), and if you add up the stations deemed London terminals for ticketing purposes (think there are 16) as fraction of all station entry and exits (divided by 2, to give journeys without double counting start and end) it is nowhere near 70% of 990million journeys

Estimates of station usage | Office of Rail and Road

www.orr.gov.uk

I wouldn't expect it to be anywhere near 70%. The '70% of journeys involve London' claim implies that for 70% of rail journeys, at least one of the two end-points is in London, while for the remaining 30% of journeys, neither end-point is in London. Of those 70%, some journeys will be entirely within London, will other journeys will be between London and not-London - but the claimed statistic doesn't give any information about how many. Without that information, the most you can say is that the number of station entry/exits in London will be somewhere between 35% and 70% of all entry/exits.

So the fact that you found the % of entry/exits in London is well below 70% doesn't by itself invalidate the claim that 70% of journeys involve travel to or from London.

 

[75A]

There are lies, dam lies and then there are statistics.

 

[gg1]

I wouldn't expect it to be anywhere near 70%. The '70% of journeys involve London' claim implies that for 70% of rail journeys, at least one of the two end-points is in London, while for the remaining 30% of journeys, neither end-point is in London. Of those 70%, some journeys will be entirely within London, will other journeys will be between London and not-London - but the claimed statistic doesn't give any information about how many. Without that information, the most you can say is that the number of station entry/exits in London will be somewhere between 35% and 70% of all entry/exits.

So the fact that you found the % of entry/exits in London is well below 70% doesn't by itself invalidate the claim that 70% of journeys involve travel to or from London.

'Involving London' could also be taken to mean including any journeys starting and ending outside London but which require a cross-London transfer, of which I suspect the number is not insignificant.

 

[nw1]

It's not really about solving the Government's problems: It's economic reality. No country can, as a whole, sustain a standard of living that is greater than the wealth it is creating - for the simple reason that you can't consume wealth (be that houses, food, power, or whatever goodies you want) unless you (or someone) has actually created that wealth first. For whatever reason (and you may be correct to partly blame the Government) the UK apparently cannot produce enough wealth to maintain the standard of living we had a few years ago, and it is therefore inevitable that our aggregate standards of living will decline by a corresponding amount (unless/until the country can start producing more). To demand otherwise is - for all practical purposes - to demand that we change the laws of mathematics. Good luck with that one...

I think it's very simplistic to say it's about the laws of mathematics. The government can choose to either cut expenditure or raise revenue (such as taxes).

So it's not an absolute mathematical law that real-terms cuts to salaries have to be made. Other means to balance the books can be done, and (without wishing to get into a debate about the rights and wrongs of possible other means) that is a question of politics, not mathematics.

That sounds to me like a political principle. Are you saying that people should strike in order to achieve political goals?

I'm saying that, when deciding whether or not you wish to strike, considering the bigger picture may be a consideration when weighing up the factors.

 

[Yew]

For whatever reason (and you may be correct to partly blame the Government) the UK apparently cannot produce enough wealth to maintain the standard of living we had a few years ago, and it is therefore inevitable that our aggregate standards of living will decline by a corresponding amount

Perhaps we could Start with Jeff, Elon and Richards personal space programs, rather than sacrificing food for working class people?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2023 ==

I think it's very simplistic to say it's about the laws of mathematics. The government can choose to either cut expenditure or raise revenue (such as taxes).

The government can also make investments that provide short-term stimulus and longer term economic returns.

 

[nw1]

According to today's Mail (didn't buy it, just saw it in a shop) Sir Elton John is the next target of Braverman's ire (as well as Gary Lineker).

Sir Elton had apparently attacked the Tories' asylum seeker policy. The language used by Braverman seemed to be implying that he did not understand the concerns of working people, their lack of access to a doctor, etc and rabbited on about the two stars being part of some "elite".

So much that's wrong here:

a) The Elton John Party has not, as far as I know, been in power recently, and is therefore not responsible for the lack of access to a doctor and other problems people are experiencing. I'm not exactly sure of the name of the party currently in power, but I have a feeling it begins with a letter "C".

b) What's wrong with Elton John using his high profile and star status to campaign on an issue he cares passionately about? I'm sure people like Braverman would have had no problem if a Tory star used their status to spread the Tory message, and certainly wouldn't be referring to them dismissively as part of the "elite". One of the most toxic aspects of right-wing populism is this kind of attack on wealthy but liberal stars when they do something good, as if they (the stars) are not allowed to have values of their own. To me it's a sign of bitterness.

c) Yet another example of a powerful Tory claiming they are not part of the elite when they patently are. Now who is really a member of the elite? Quick check: Braverman: private school (nothing wrong with that), Cambridge (nor that), and barrister - but all taken together, a sign of a privileged background. Elton John: council house, left school before his A-levels, and achieved success through his own talents and efforts. Elton John is surely the sort of person that traditional Conservatives of the Thatcher type used to admire, is he not? Humble beginnings, used his talents to earn a living, self-made millionaire. Plenty of those in Braverman's own constituency: Fareham constituency is notable for some really nice and expensive houses. But of course I suspect she's OK with them if they vote Tory.

I suspect Elton John will still be remembered in 50 years, while Braverman will be, if she's lucky, an embarrassing footnote from an equally embarrassing period in UK modern history. Someone trying to play the "ordinary working person" card in an attempt to get votes when she is nothing of the sort.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think it's very simplistic to say it's about the laws of mathematics. The government can choose to either cut expenditure or raise revenue (such as taxes).

Yes, the economy is complicated, but I'm afraid it really is about the basic laws of mathematics, as your own examples illustrate. You say the Government could raise taxes: Well that reduces peoples standards of living. If inflation has eroded your effective income by - say - £10 a week, that has exactly the same impact on your standard of living as the Government taking £10 more a week in tax. Or you say the Government can cut expenditure. That would inevitably imply cuts in services, which will then cause a loss in standard of living for whoever uses those services (plus the staff who provide those services, if they get made redundant). You really can't get away from the problem that, in the long run, our aggregate standard of living is limited by the country's output. And the consequence of that is that (other in some special situations) it is simply not possible to increase our standard of living/solve the cost of living crisis by handing out wage increases in the absence of increases in output. Giving the striking rail workers what the RMT/ASLEF are demanding would simply have the effect of redistributing wealth from everyone else to the rail workers, thereby further eroding everyone else's standard of living (the transmission mechanism being either slightly higher inflation or higher taxes or loss in services, depending on how the Government funds paying for the wage demands).

 

[najaB]

You say the Government could raise taxes: Well that reduces peoples standards of living. If inflation has eroded your effective income by - say - £10 a week, that has exactly the same impact on your standard of living as the Government taking £10 more a week in tax.

Assuming basic/higher rate income tax rises. Other taxes and levies are available.

 

[Gloster]

I think it is increasingly dawning on people that it is the rich who are prioritised for tax cuts by the present government, but they are ones who are most insulated from the economies necessary to allow these tax cuts. To add to that has been the blatant cronyism that has seen large sums of taxpayers’ money filling the pockets of already well off people or those who are lucky to have useful friends in the party, with all too much of the money completely wasted.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2023 ==

Yes, the economy is complicated, but I'm afraid it really is about the basic laws of mathematics, as your own examples illustrate. You say the Government could raise taxes: Well that reduces peoples standards of living. If inflation has eroded your effective income by - say - £10 a week, that has exactly the same impact on your standard of living as the Government taking £10 more a week in tax. Or you say the Government can cut expenditure. That would inevitably imply cuts in services, which will then cause a loss in standard of living for whoever uses those services (plus the staff who provide those services, if they get made redundant). You really can't get away from the problem that, in the long run, our aggregate standard of living is limited by the country's output. And the consequence of that is that (other in some special situations) it is simply not possible to increase our standard of living/solve the cost of living crisis by handing out wage increases in the absence of increases in output. Giving the striking rail workers what the RMT/ASLEF are demanding would simply have the effect of redistributing wealth from everyone else to the rail workers, thereby further eroding everyone else's standard of living (the transmission mechanism being either slightly higher inflation or higher taxes or loss in services, depending on how the Government funds paying for the wage demands).

 

[Enthusiast]

The triple lock pension saves some people from joining in that free marketing rebalancing. Should they be insulated from economic reality? If so, why only them?

People who have retired are not in the "free market". They have no labour to sell and so cannot negotiate (or go on strike). They cannot lobby their pension provider (be it the State of a pension scheme) for an increase and their increases are usually determined by a preset formula.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Assuming basic/higher rate income tax rises. Other taxes and levies are available.

Sure. But that still reduces someone's standard of living, and so doesn't change that, in the absence of an increase in output, average living standards won't go up. I'll hazard a guess that what you're thinking of is that other taxes could be levied in a way that explicitly targets people who are much better off - and which would therefore amount to a redistribution of wealth (rather than creating any new wealth). Whether or not that is desirable is a separate discussion.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, the economy is complicated, but I'm afraid it really is about the basic laws of mathematics, as your own examples illustrate. You say the Government could raise taxes: Well that reduces peoples standards of living. If inflation has eroded your effective income by - say - £10 a week, that has exactly the same impact on your standard of living as the Government taking £10 more a week in tax. Or you say the Government can cut expenditure. That would inevitably imply cuts in services, which will then cause a loss in standard of living for whoever uses those services (plus the staff who provide those services, if they get made redundant). You really can't get away from the problem that, in the long run, our aggregate standard of living is limited by the country's output. And the consequence of that is that (other in some special situations) it is simply not possible to increase our standard of living/solve the cost of living crisis by handing out wage increases in the absence of increases in output. Giving the striking rail workers what the RMT/ASLEF are demanding would simply have the effect of redistributing wealth from everyone else to the rail workers, thereby further eroding everyone else's standard of living (the transmission mechanism being either slightly higher inflation or higher taxes or loss in services, depending on how the Government funds paying for the wage demands).

That's the sort of "common sense" but simplistic argument that got Thatcher elected in 1979 and Cameron in 2010. It ignores the fact that increased wages put more money into the economy - particularly for the lower-paid who are more likely to spend it locally. For similar reasons austerity hit the economy and reduced the tax base. Brexit has made both import and export more difficult and costly, reducing the productivity and competitiveness of the exporters who bring money into the economy from outside, and increasing inflation via the price of imported goods.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That's the sort of "common sense" but simplistic argument that got Thatcher elected in 1979 and Cameron in 2010. It ignores the fact that increased wages put more money into the economy - particularly for the lower-paid who are more likely to spend it locally. For similar reasons austerity hit the economy and reduced the tax base.

That's basically the argument that pumping money into the economy can itself cause output to increase. That's a plausible argument if you're in the situation of - say - the early 1980s when output is being depressed by a lack of liquidity (crudely, not enough money flowing around) and there is mass unemployment - people who want to and could be producing stuff but aren't. And that's the kind of thing I was referring to in my post when I mentioned (other in some special situations). But I don't think it's a plausible argument today when there is essentially full employment and there don't seem to be any liquidity issues. Who would you get to produce more stuff when we already have near-full employment amongst those who wish to work and are able to do so? In today's situation, pumping in more money can only lead to more inflation unless some action is taken to increase our capacity to produce stuff.

Brexit has made both import and export more difficult and costly, reducing the productivity and competitiveness of the exporters who bring money into the economy from outside, and increasing inflation via the price of imported goods.

Yes, there's a good argument that Brexit is one of the things that has hit the UK's capacity to output. I don't think that changes the point that in order to improve people's standards of living, you have to produce more.

 

[The Ham]

That's basically the argument that pumping money into the economy can itself cause output to increase. That's a plausible argument if you're in the situation of - say - the early 1980s when output is being depressed by a lack of liquidity (crudely, not enough money flowing around) and there is mass unemployment - people who want to and could be producing stuff but aren't. And that's the kind of thing I was referring to in my post when I mentioned (other in some special situations). But I don't think it's a plausible argument today when there is essentially full employment and there don't seem to be any liquidity issues. Who would you get to produce more stuff when we already have near-full employment amongst those who wish to work and are able to do so? In today's situation, pumping in more money can only lead to more inflation unless some action is taken to increase our capacity to produce stuff.

I think it depends on where the money goes in.

For example tax breaks are likely to raise inflation.

However, if you change the rules around low pay (for example how much the effective tax is for those on benefits as they start to earn more) it's likely to boost the economy.

Those who benefitted the most from Furlough/WFH were likely to be those earning a reasonable amount of money, so cutting their costs (no commuting) meant that they then have a lot of spare money, which they can then spend on high value items (new houses, new cars, extensions, etc.).

Conversely, those who had to carry on working or had to go into work haven't seen those savings. These are more likely to be shop workers, nurses, carers, warehouse staff, etc. and so are more likely to be lower end in terms of pay (yes there's exceptions like Consultants, which is why I've said more likely).

Depending on what the job is that anyone is doing, it may well be that it's not easy to switch to another role which pays more, so any pay increases are more likely to be linked to government policy rather than moving jobs (the opposite of a some staff in the private sector where pay can be boosted by moving companies - which I have used to my benefit more than once, even a few times staying at the same company after been made an offer by another company).

Obviously there's lots of variables and exceptions, however one thing which might need to happen is more jobs get automated so there's scope for those staff to do other things.

Of course to ensure you're not chucking people onto the scrap heap they need to be able to find other work. To do that they need to be able to easily get about - and not only by car. As such the spending on infrastructure is key.

 

[nlogax]

Enjoying the levels of lunacy being observed at the first full day of the Tory conference. Liz Truss is currently talking at a fringe event so you already know the grand delusions are flowing nicely.

 

[The Ham]

Enjoying the levels of lunacy being observed at the first full day of the Tory conference. Liz Truss is currently talking at a fringe event so you already know the grand delusions are flowing nicely.

Some reports are suggesting that the venues (all of them, including the main one) are smaller than before, as they are expecting far fewer people to attend.

If anyone wishes to comment further that's up to them...

 

[sor]

There are suggestions that they've been forcing people to bunch together so that the official photos make the rooms look more packed than they really are

Shades of one of the cameron era election campaigns where they parked the bus in a way to avoid showing a mostly empty barn in Cornwall

 

[nw1]

There are suggestions that they've been forcing people to bunch together so that the official photos make the rooms look more packed than they really are

Shades of one of the cameron era election campaigns where they parked the bus in a way to avoid showing a mostly empty barn in Cornwall

Reminds me of Trump's inauguration!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Not sure yet how much significance to place in this, since MSN seems to be the only news outlet reporting it so far (link), but there are rumours of a possible by-election in Blackpool South because of some likelihood that the Parliamentary Standards committee may decided to suspend Scott Benton (Tory, but whip currently suspended) for 10 days, which would open up the recall petition process.

Rishi Sunak faces another nightmare by-election in a Red Wall seat as an MP is set to be ousted over a lobbying scandal.

The Standards Committee is poised to suspend Scott Benton for more than 10 days, which will trigger a process that will give his constituents the chance to remove him.

The MP for Blackpool South had the Tory whip suspended in April after he was filmed offering to lobby ministers and leak confidential information on behalf of gambling industry investors. He suggested to undercover reporters that MPs were able to get around transparency rules on corporate hospitality by putting a falsely low value on tickets to avoid having to declare them.

The Standards Committee will announce Mr Benton’s fate within the next few weeks. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has been looking into allegations that his actions caused “significant damage to the reputation of the House” of Commons. It launched the probe after the Tory referred himself for investigation.

If there is a by-election in Blackpool South, it should be an easy gain for Labour: It's a borderline marginal-ish seat, with Labour needing a swing of less than 6% to take the seat.