Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer

[Bruce]

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>

Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control

Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services

Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.

An independent thinktank report out on Monday, which puts forward a
detailed plan for effective renationalisation, was warmly welcomed by
the party's transport spokeswoman, Maria Eagle, who said the study was
timely and put forward a "coherent case for reform".

The changes would amount to the biggest overhaul of the train system
since British Rail was broken up in the mid-1990s and be seen as a
deliberate pitch by Ed Miliband's party for millions of "commuter
votes" in key marginal seats ahead of the next election.

If adopted by Labour it would mean ending franchises as they come up
for renewal on the east coast, west coast and midland mainlines –
ousting the likes of Sir Richard Branson from one of the country's
most profitable routes – and bringing the running of trains and
infrastructure under one publicly owned and accountable company.

Entitled Rebuilding Rail, the report by Transport for Quality of Life
argues that rail operations and infrastructure should be reintegrated,
franchising phased out and a democratic role given to passengers, the
workforce and elected local and regional authorities.

It says that the current fragmented system – under which the publicly
owned Network Rail runs the infrastructure and private companies
compete for franchise contracts to run trains – is failing taxpayers
and passengers while benefiting private train operators and their
shareholders, who are guaranteed taxpayer funds if profits fall below
a certain level.

The authors estimate that £1.2bn of public money has been lost each
year as a direct result of privatisation and fragmentation, money that
could have allowed fares to be 18% lower than at present. UK rail
passengers, who already pay the highest fares in Europe, face further
increases of at least 6% from next January.

Making it clear that Labour agreed with many ideas in the report,
which was funded by the main rail unions, Eagle said: "Under the
current system we have unaccountable train companies given a licence
to print money to operate a monopoly service at high cost to
passengers in an industry that still relies on £4bn from taxpayers
every year.

"Increasingly franchises are run by subsidiaries of the German, French
and Dutch state railways with profits helping deliver ticket prices in
those countries that are a third of ours. Labour's policy review is
therefore looking at all options to make our railways work better for
passengers with nothing ruled out, including whether the
not-for-dividend model that works for rail infrastructure should be
extended to rail services."

END QUOTE

For the rest of the article, go to:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>

[Charles Ellson]

Post by Bruce
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control
Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services
Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.
An independent thinktank report out on Monday, which puts forward a
detailed plan for effective renationalisation, was warmly welcomed by
the party's transport spokeswoman, Maria Eagle, who said the study was
timely and put forward a "coherent case for reform".
The changes would amount to the biggest overhaul of the train system
since British Rail was broken up in the mid-1990s and be seen as a
deliberate pitch by Ed Miliband's party for millions of "commuter
votes" in key marginal seats ahead of the next election.
If adopted by Labour it would mean ending franchises as they come up
for renewal on the east coast, west coast and midland mainlines –
ousting the likes of Sir Richard Branson from one of the country's
most profitable routes – and bringing the running of trains and
infrastructure under one publicly owned and accountable company.
Entitled Rebuilding Rail, the report by Transport for Quality of Life
argues that rail operations and infrastructure should be reintegrated,
franchising phased out and a democratic role given to passengers, the
workforce and elected local and regional authorities.
It says that the current fragmented system – under which the publicly
owned Network Rail runs the infrastructure and private companies
compete for franchise contracts to run trains – is failing taxpayers
and passengers while benefiting private train operators and their
shareholders, who are guaranteed taxpayer funds if profits fall below
a certain level.
The authors estimate that £1.2bn of public money has been lost each
year as a direct result of privatisation and fragmentation, money that
could have allowed fares to be 18% lower than at present. UK rail
passengers, who already pay the highest fares in Europe, face further
increases of at least 6% from next January.
Making it clear that Labour agreed with many ideas in the report,
which was funded by the main rail unions, Eagle said: "Under the
current system we have unaccountable train companies given a licence
to print money to operate a monopoly service at high cost to
passengers in an industry that still relies on £4bn from taxpayers
every year.
"Increasingly franchises are run by subsidiaries of the German, French
and Dutch state railways with profits helping deliver ticket prices in
those countries that are a third of ours. Labour's policy review is
therefore looking at all options to make our railways work better for
passengers with nothing ruled out, including whether the
not-for-dividend model that works for rail infrastructure should be
extended to rail services."
END QUOTE
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>

I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe they've conveniently forgotten to
mention how they will achieve it without tripping over EU rules which
will come as an "unexpected surprise" when they try it ?

[h***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Bruce
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control
Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services
Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.
An independent thinktank report out on Monday, which puts forward a
detailed plan for effective renationalisation, was warmly welcomed by
the party's transport spokeswoman, Maria Eagle, who said the study was
timely and put forward a "coherent case for reform".
The changes would amount to the biggest overhaul of the train system
since British Rail was broken up in the mid-1990s and be seen as a
deliberate pitch by Ed Miliband's party for millions of "commuter
votes" in key marginal seats ahead of the next election.
If adopted by Labour it would mean ending franchises as they come up
for renewal on the east coast, west coast and midland mainlines –
ousting the likes of Sir Richard Branson from one of the country's
most profitable routes – and bringing the running of trains and
infrastructure under one publicly owned and accountable company.
Entitled Rebuilding Rail, the report by Transport for Quality of Life
argues that rail operations and infrastructure should be reintegrated,
franchising phased out and a democratic role given to passengers, the
workforce and elected local and regional authorities.
It says that the current fragmented system – under which the publicly
owned Network Rail runs the infrastructure and private companies
compete for franchise contracts to run trains – is failing taxpayers
and passengers while benefiting private train operators and their
shareholders, who are guaranteed taxpayer funds if profits fall below
a certain level.
The authors estimate that £1.2bn of public money has been lost each
year as a direct result of privatisation and fragmentation, money that
could have allowed fares to be 18% lower than at present. UK rail
passengers, who already pay the highest fares in Europe, face further
increases of at least 6% from next January.
Making it clear that Labour agreed with many ideas in the report,
which was funded by the main rail unions, Eagle said: "Under the
current system we have unaccountable train companies given a licence
to print money to operate a monopoly service at high cost to
passengers in an industry that still relies on £4bn from taxpayers
every year.
"Increasingly franchises are run by subsidiaries of the German, French
and Dutch state railways with profits helping deliver ticket prices in
those countries that are a third of ours. Labour's policy review is
therefore looking at all options to make our railways work better for
passengers with nothing ruled out, including whether the
not-for-dividend model that works for rail infrastructure should be
extended to rail services."
END QUOTE
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>

I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe they've conveniently forgotten to
mention how they will achieve it without tripping over EU rules which
will come as an "unexpected surprise" when they try it ?

Cannot the operating company and the infrastructure nonetheless be
state-owned?

[Charles Ellson]

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Bruce
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control
Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services
Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.
An independent thinktank report out on Monday, which puts forward a
detailed plan for effective renationalisation, was warmly welcomed by
the party's transport spokeswoman, Maria Eagle, who said the study was
timely and put forward a "coherent case for reform".
The changes would amount to the biggest overhaul of the train system
since British Rail was broken up in the mid-1990s and be seen as a
deliberate pitch by Ed Miliband's party for millions of "commuter
votes" in key marginal seats ahead of the next election.
If adopted by Labour it would mean ending franchises as they come up
for renewal on the east coast, west coast and midland mainlines –
ousting the likes of Sir Richard Branson from one of the country's
most profitable routes – and bringing the running of trains and
infrastructure under one publicly owned and accountable company.
Entitled Rebuilding Rail, the report by Transport for Quality of Life
argues that rail operations and infrastructure should be reintegrated,
franchising phased out and a democratic role given to passengers, the
workforce and elected local and regional authorities.
It says that the current fragmented system – under which the publicly
owned Network Rail runs the infrastructure and private companies
compete for franchise contracts to run trains – is failing taxpayers
and passengers while benefiting private train operators and their
shareholders, who are guaranteed taxpayer funds if profits fall below
a certain level.
The authors estimate that £1.2bn of public money has been lost each
year as a direct result of privatisation and fragmentation, money that
could have allowed fares to be 18% lower than at present. UK rail
passengers, who already pay the highest fares in Europe, face further
increases of at least 6% from next January.
Making it clear that Labour agreed with many ideas in the report,
which was funded by the main rail unions, Eagle said: "Under the
current system we have unaccountable train companies given a licence
to print money to operate a monopoly service at high cost to
passengers in an industry that still relies on £4bn from taxpayers
every year.
"Increasingly franchises are run by subsidiaries of the German, French
and Dutch state railways with profits helping deliver ticket prices in
those countries that are a third of ours. Labour's policy review is
therefore looking at all options to make our railways work better for
passengers with nothing ruled out, including whether the
not-for-dividend model that works for rail infrastructure should be
extended to rail services."
END QUOTE
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>

I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe they've conveniently forgotten to
mention how they will achieve it without tripping over EU rules which
will come as an "unexpected surprise" when they try it ?

Cannot the operating company and the infrastructure nonetheless be
state-owned?

Indeed but IMU the work performed on it has to be publicly advertised
to the rest of the EU and then awarded to the most suitable (not
necessarily the cheapest) candidate not just to e.g. Mr Millipede's
chosen recipient. Renationalising the infrastructure is probably the
easy part but not the trains using it.

[allantracy]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Cannot the operating company and the infrastructure nonetheless be
state-owned?

Indeed but IMU the work performed on it has to be publicly advertised
to the rest of the EU and then awarded to the most suitable (not
necessarily the cheapest) candidate not just to e.g. Mr Millipede's
chosen recipient. Renationalising the infrastructure is probably the
easy part but not the trains using it.

Yep, it’s in the Lisbon treaty, once the competition genie has been
let out of the bottle, whether it be competitive tendering for NHS,
education or railways it can’t go back in.

Under EU rules, the only way the UK government can regain control is
by bidding in the competitive market so created, just like anyone else
and, that’s not the end of it either, they would have to re-bid
periodically as well.

Now remind us again who it was that signed us up to the Lisbon treaty
(whether we like it or not) oh that was Miliband’s ‘can’t win a vote
outside of Kirkcaldy’ best mate Gordon.

Ed Miliband is setting himself up for a great big fall the way he
keeps trying to walk away from the last Labour government, pretending
it had all never happened.

He’s been at it today again, over the Libor banking scandal, which
news reports over the weekend have now implicated the BoE and that’s
perilously close to government err… the one he was in the Treasury
with at the time.

A proper democratic party would have cleansed itself of their
disastrous previous thirteen years in office but then Labour isn’t a
proper democratic party.

[Bruce]

Post by allantracy
Ed Miliband is setting himself up for a great big fall the way he
keeps trying to walk away from the last Labour government, pretending
it had all never happened.

... just like David Cameron who pretends he had nothing to do with the
last Tory government, in spite of his role as Special Adviser to the
then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont. Pictures from Black
Wednesday (16.9.92) when the pound was forced out of the Exchange Rate
Mechanism show Lamont and Cameron strutting together.

So on the basis of your argument, David Cameron must also be setting
himself (and the country) up for a great big fall. ;-)

[Alex Potter]

Post by Bruce
So on the basis of your argument, David Cameron must also be setting
himself (and the country) up for a great big fall. ;-)

Isn't he?

[allantracy]

Post by Alex Potter

Post by Bruce
So on the basis of your argument, David Cameron must also be setting
himself (and the country) up for a great big fall.   ;-)

Isn't he?

Possibly, though quite how you fall out of a hole, you're clearly
already in, remains to be seen.

I’ve always believed that, provided David can keep his hands off the
nukes, he won’t have to deliver a great deal to be considered a
considerable improvement on what had come before.

[77002]

Post by allantracy

Post by Alex Potter

Post by Bruce
So on the basis of your argument, David Cameron must also be setting
himself (and the country) up for a great big fall.   ;-)

Isn't he?

Possibly, though quite how you fall out of a hole, you're clearly
already in, remains to be seen.
I’ve always believed that, provided David can keep his hands off the
nukes, he won’t have to deliver a great deal to be considered a
considerable improvement on what had come before.

It would not be hard to improve on "tax and spend" Brown. However,
that is still a long way from good, small, government.

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

Post by Bruce
... just like David Cameron who pretends he had nothing to do with the
last Tory government, in spite of his role as Special Adviser to the
then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont. Pictures from Black
Wednesday (16.9.92) when the pound was forced out of the Exchange Rate
Mechanism show Lamont and Cameron strutting together.
So on the basis of your argument, David Cameron must also be setting
himself (and the country) up for a great big fall. ;-)

Cameron was in the positio of giving political advice. From the way Labour
made such a fuss about it, you'd think Cameron had personally been running
the UK's economic policy, taking all the decisions himself. This has been
roundly denied by both Norman Lamont and John Major.

However the Labour attacks may say something about how SpAds operated under
their own government, and in turn says a lot about the mess they made.

[Bruce]

Post by Tim Roll-Pickering

Post by Bruce
... just like David Cameron who pretends he had nothing to do with the
last Tory government, in spite of his role as Special Adviser to the
then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont. Pictures from Black
Wednesday (16.9.92) when the pound was forced out of the Exchange Rate
Mechanism show Lamont and Cameron strutting together.
So on the basis of your argument, David Cameron must also be setting
himself (and the country) up for a great big fall. ;-)

Cameron was in the positio of giving political advice. From the way Labour
made such a fuss about it, you'd think Cameron had personally been running
the UK's economic policy, taking all the decisions himself. This has been
roundly denied by both Norman Lamont and John Major.

The job of a Special Adviser is to give POLICY advice to a Secretary
of State and/or Minister(s).

I don't think Labour has ever accused Cameron of running the UK's
economic policy at that time. But Cameron cannot deny knowledge of
what was going on, and if he wasn't giving policy advice, he wasn't
doing the job he was being paid for.

[e27002]

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Charles Ellson

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state...>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control
Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services
Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.
An independent thinktank report out on Monday, which puts forward a
detailed plan for effective renationalisation, was warmly welcomed by
the party's transport spokeswoman, Maria Eagle, who said the study was
timely and put forward a "coherent case for reform".
The changes would amount to the biggest overhaul of the train system
since British Rail was broken up in the mid-1990s and be seen as a
deliberate pitch by Ed Miliband's party for millions of "commuter
votes" in key marginal seats ahead of the next election.
If adopted by Labour it would mean ending franchises as they come up
for renewal on the east coast, west coast and midland mainlines –
ousting the likes of Sir Richard Branson from one of the country's
most profitable routes – and bringing the running of trains and
infrastructure under one publicly owned and accountable company.
Entitled Rebuilding Rail, the report by Transport for Quality of Life
argues that rail operations and infrastructure should be reintegrated,
franchising phased out and a democratic role given to passengers, the
workforce and elected local and regional authorities.
It says that the current fragmented system – under which the publicly
owned Network Rail runs the infrastructure and private companies
compete for franchise contracts to run trains – is failing taxpayers
and passengers while benefiting private train operators and their
shareholders, who are guaranteed taxpayer funds if profits fall below
a certain level.
The authors estimate that £1.2bn of public money has been lost each
year as a direct result of privatisation and fragmentation, money that
could have allowed fares to be 18% lower than at present. UK rail
passengers, who already pay the highest fares in Europe, face further
increases of at least 6% from next January.
Making it clear that Labour agreed with many ideas in the report,
which was funded by the main rail unions, Eagle said: "Under the
current system we have unaccountable train companies given a licence
to print money to operate a monopoly service at high cost to
passengers in an industry that still relies on £4bn from taxpayers
every year.
"Increasingly franchises are run by subsidiaries of the German, French
and Dutch state railways with profits helping deliver ticket prices in
those countries that are a third of ours. Labour's policy review is
therefore looking at all options to make our railways work better for
passengers with nothing ruled out, including whether the
not-for-dividend model that works for rail infrastructure should be
extended to rail services."
END QUOTE
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state...>

I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe they've conveniently forgotten to
mention how they will achieve it without tripping over EU rules which
will come as an "unexpected surprise" when they try it ?

Cannot the operating company and the infrastructure nonetheless be
state-owned?

Network Rail is a State Monopoly in everything but name. The Railways
are as Government Controlled as they have ever been. Why would the UK
go back to the dark days of British Railways? Better IMO to allow
operating companies to buy the infrastructure. Then drop franchising,
allow history to take its course (given neccessary regulation and
grants for desirable, but loss-making services).

[Molossus]

Post by e27002

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Charles Ellson

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state...>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control
Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services
Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.
An independent thinktank report out on Monday, which puts forward a
detailed plan for effective renationalisation, was warmly welcomed by
the party's transport spokeswoman, Maria Eagle, who said the study was
timely and put forward a "coherent case for reform".
The changes would amount to the biggest overhaul of the train system
since British Rail was broken up in the mid-1990s and be seen as a
deliberate pitch by Ed Miliband's party for millions of "commuter
votes" in key marginal seats ahead of the next election.
If adopted by Labour it would mean ending franchises as they come up
for renewal on the east coast, west coast and midland mainlines –
ousting the likes of Sir Richard Branson from one of the country's
most profitable routes – and bringing the running of trains and
infrastructure under one publicly owned and accountable company.
Entitled Rebuilding Rail, the report by Transport for Quality of Life
argues that rail operations and infrastructure should be reintegrated,
franchising phased out and a democratic role given to passengers, the
workforce and elected local and regional authorities.
It says that the current fragmented system – under which the publicly
owned Network Rail runs the infrastructure and private companies
compete for franchise contracts to run trains – is failing taxpayers
and passengers while benefiting private train operators and their
shareholders, who are guaranteed taxpayer funds if profits fall below
a certain level.
The authors estimate that £1.2bn of public money has been lost each
year as a direct result of privatisation and fragmentation, money that
could have allowed fares to be 18% lower than at present. UK rail
passengers, who already pay the highest fares in Europe, face further
increases of at least 6% from next January.
Making it clear that Labour agreed with many ideas in the report,
which was funded by the main rail unions, Eagle said: "Under the
current system we have unaccountable train companies given a licence
to print money to operate a monopoly service at high cost to
passengers in an industry that still relies on £4bn from taxpayers
every year.
"Increasingly franchises are run by subsidiaries of the German, French
and Dutch state railways with profits helping deliver ticket prices in
those countries that are a third of ours. Labour's policy review is
therefore looking at all options to make our railways work better for
passengers with nothing ruled out, including whether the
not-for-dividend model that works for rail infrastructure should be
extended to rail services."
END QUOTE
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state...>

I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe they've conveniently forgotten to
mention how they will achieve it without tripping over EU rules which
will come as an "unexpected surprise" when they try it ?

Cannot the operating company and the infrastructure nonetheless be
state-owned?

Network Rail is a State Monopoly in everything but name. The Railways
are as Government Controlled as they have ever been. Why would the UK
go back to the dark days of British Railways? Better IMO to allow
operating companies to buy the infrastructure. Then drop franchising,
allow history to take its course (given neccessary regulation and
grants for desirable, but loss-making services).

18% fare saving? As pointed out elsewhere TOCs get less than a £1 slice of every fare sold. Just what will the Government make the savings on? We've already seen what happens when they take over the specification and ordering of stock. Each IEP coach will cost us £9,000,000. (Look at the terms of the ECML consultation and the announced costs to date).
Labour is only considering the idea, it's as likely to happen as us putting a man on Mars in 2013.

[Scott]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 03:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Molossus

Post by Molossus

Post by e27002

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Charles Ellson

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state...>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control
Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services
Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.
An independent thinktank report out on Monday, which puts forward a
detailed plan for effective renationalisation, was warmly welcomed by
the party's transport spokeswoman, Maria Eagle, who said the study was
timely and put forward a "coherent case for reform".
The changes would amount to the biggest overhaul of the train system
since British Rail was broken up in the mid-1990s and be seen as a
deliberate pitch by Ed Miliband's party for millions of "commuter
votes" in key marginal seats ahead of the next election.
If adopted by Labour it would mean ending franchises as they come up
for renewal on the east coast, west coast and midland mainlines –
ousting the likes of Sir Richard Branson from one of the country's
most profitable routes – and bringing the running of trains and
infrastructure under one publicly owned and accountable company.
Entitled Rebuilding Rail, the report by Transport for Quality of Life
argues that rail operations and infrastructure should be reintegrated,
franchising phased out and a democratic role given to passengers, the
workforce and elected local and regional authorities.
It says that the current fragmented system – under which the publicly
owned Network Rail runs the infrastructure and private companies
compete for franchise contracts to run trains – is failing taxpayers
and passengers while benefiting private train operators and their
shareholders, who are guaranteed taxpayer funds if profits fall below
a certain level.
The authors estimate that £1.2bn of public money has been lost each
year as a direct result of privatisation and fragmentation, money that
could have allowed fares to be 18% lower than at present. UK rail
passengers, who already pay the highest fares in Europe, face further
increases of at least 6% from next January.
Making it clear that Labour agreed with many ideas in the report,
which was funded by the main rail unions, Eagle said: "Under the
current system we have unaccountable train companies given a licence
to print money to operate a monopoly service at high cost to
passengers in an industry that still relies on £4bn from taxpayers
every year.
"Increasingly franchises are run by subsidiaries of the German, French
and Dutch state railways with profits helping deliver ticket prices in
those countries that are a third of ours. Labour's policy review is
therefore looking at all options to make our railways work better for
passengers with nothing ruled out, including whether the
not-for-dividend model that works for rail infrastructure should be
extended to rail services."
END QUOTE
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state...>

I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe they've conveniently forgotten to
mention how they will achieve it without tripping over EU rules which
will come as an "unexpected surprise" when they try it ?

Cannot the operating company and the infrastructure nonetheless be
state-owned?

Network Rail is a State Monopoly in everything but name. The Railways
are as Government Controlled as they have ever been. Why would the UK
go back to the dark days of British Railways? Better IMO to allow
operating companies to buy the infrastructure. Then drop franchising,
allow history to take its course (given neccessary regulation and
grants for desirable, but loss-making services).

18% fare saving? As pointed out elsewhere TOCs get less than a £1 slice of every fare sold. Just what will the Government make the savings on? We've already seen what happens when they take over the specification and ordering of stock. Each IEP coach will cost us £9,000,000. (Look at the terms of the ECML consultation and the announced costs to date).
Labour is only considering the idea, it's as likely to happen as us putting a man on Mars in 2013.

You mean a woman on Mars is more likely? :-)

[Xyz Jim]

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Charles Ellson

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state...>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control
Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services
Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.
An independent thinktank report out on Monday, which puts forward a
detailed plan for effective renationalisation, was warmly welcomed by
the party's transport spokeswoman, Maria Eagle, who said the study was
timely and put forward a "coherent case for reform".
The changes would amount to the biggest overhaul of the train system
since British Rail was broken up in the mid-1990s and be seen as a
deliberate pitch by Ed Miliband's party for millions of "commuter
votes" in key marginal seats ahead of the next election.
If adopted by Labour it would mean ending franchises as they come up
for renewal on the east coast, west coast and midland mainlines –
ousting the likes of Sir Richard Branson from one of the country's
most profitable routes – and bringing the running of trains and
infrastructure under one publicly owned and accountable company.
Entitled Rebuilding Rail, the report by Transport for Quality of Life
argues that rail operations and infrastructure should be reintegrated,
franchising phased out and a democratic role given to passengers, the
workforce and elected local and regional authorities.
It says that the current fragmented system – under which the publicly
owned Network Rail runs the infrastructure and private companies
compete for franchise contracts to run trains – is failing taxpayers
and passengers while benefiting private train operators and their
shareholders, who are guaranteed taxpayer funds if profits fall below
a certain level.
The authors estimate that £1.2bn of public money has been lost each
year as a direct result of privatisation and fragmentation, money that
could have allowed fares to be 18% lower than at present. UK rail
passengers, who already pay the highest fares in Europe, face further
increases of at least 6% from next January.
Making it clear that Labour agreed with many ideas in the report,
which was funded by the main rail unions, Eagle said: "Under the
current system we have unaccountable train companies given a licence
to print money to operate a monopoly service at high cost to
passengers in an industry that still relies on £4bn from taxpayers
every year.
"Increasingly franchises are run by subsidiaries of the German, French
and Dutch state railways with profits helping deliver ticket prices in
those countries that are a third of ours. Labour's policy review is
therefore looking at all options to make our railways work better for
passengers with nothing ruled out, including whether the
not-for-dividend model that works for rail infrastructure should be
extended to rail services."
END QUOTE
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state...>

I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe they've conveniently forgotten to
mention how they will achieve it without tripping over EU rules which
will come as an "unexpected surprise" when they try it ?

Cannot the operating company and the infrastructure nonetheless be
state-owned?

Network Rail is a State Monopoly in everything but name.  The Railways
are as Government Controlled as they have ever been.  Why would the UK
go back to the dark days of British Railways?   Better IMO to allow
operating companies to buy the infrastructure.  Then drop franchising,
allow history to take its course (given neccessary regulation and
grants for desirable, but loss-making services).

18% fare saving? As pointed out elsewhere TOCs get less than a £1 slice of every fare sold. Just what will the Government make the savings on?  We've already seen what happens when they take over the specification and ordering of stock. Each IEP coach will cost us £9,000,000. (Look at the terms of the ECML consultation and the announced costs to date).
Labour is only considering the idea, it's as likely to happen as us putting a man on Mars in 2013.

Do you mean theTOC's profit margin is less than 1% of fare revenue or
something like that?

McNulty did look at this and concluded that the savings from private
v.s public were greater than what was taken out and given to
shareholders. As you mention, DfT rolling stock procurement, or indeed
other government PFI deals are hardly great advertisements for state
efficiency. However their idea of a publicly owned corporation is
quite different to the current DfT structure and the point about
saving £150m per year in lower debt interest looks perfectly sound.
McNulty doesn't touch this topic.

Of course before Labour are ever likely to get to power, most of the
big franchises will have been renewed by the current government, so
other than offering to absorb the huge credit card bill that NR have
run up, there won't be much of this report left to implement.

It is also worth remembering there isn't really such a thing as an
'independent' thinkthank. This report is heavily sponsored by the
trade unions, while the body that wrote it is very much of the
sustainable transport i.e 'not car' persuasion.

If I were to try and find some more successful models of public rail
transport (than National Rail) they might be London Overground
(privately operated, publicly tendered to a very fine level of detail)
and Swiss Railways (mostly publicly owned, vertically integrated
corporations). Given how much of the UK railway operation is loss
making, I am wary of how a more lightly regulated, vertically
integrated 'Big Four' grouping of privately owned local monopolies
might work out, if that is along the lines of what you suggest?

[Molossus]

Post by Xyz Jim

Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Charles Ellson

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state...>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control
Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services
Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.
An independent thinktank report out on Monday, which puts forward a
detailed plan for effective renationalisation, was warmly welcomed by
the party's transport spokeswoman, Maria Eagle, who said the study was
timely and put forward a "coherent case for reform".
The changes would amount to the biggest overhaul of the train system
since British Rail was broken up in the mid-1990s and be seen as a
deliberate pitch by Ed Miliband's party for millions of "commuter
votes" in key marginal seats ahead of the next election.
If adopted by Labour it would mean ending franchises as they come up
for renewal on the east coast, west coast and midland mainlines –
ousting the likes of Sir Richard Branson from one of the country's
most profitable routes – and bringing the running of trains and
infrastructure under one publicly owned and accountable company.
Entitled Rebuilding Rail, the report by Transport for Quality of Life
argues that rail operations and infrastructure should be reintegrated,
franchising phased out and a democratic role given to passengers, the
workforce and elected local and regional authorities.
It says that the current fragmented system – under which the publicly
owned Network Rail runs the infrastructure and private companies
compete for franchise contracts to run trains – is failing taxpayers
and passengers while benefiting private train operators and their
shareholders, who are guaranteed taxpayer funds if profits fall below
a certain level.
The authors estimate that £1.2bn of public money has been lost each
year as a direct result of privatisation and fragmentation, money that
could have allowed fares to be 18% lower than at present. UK rail
passengers, who already pay the highest fares in Europe, face further
increases of at least 6% from next January.
Making it clear that Labour agreed with many ideas in the report,
which was funded by the main rail unions, Eagle said: "Under the
current system we have unaccountable train companies given a licence
to print money to operate a monopoly service at high cost to
passengers in an industry that still relies on £4bn from taxpayers
every year.
"Increasingly franchises are run by subsidiaries of the German, French
and Dutch state railways with profits helping deliver ticket prices in
those countries that are a third of ours. Labour's policy review is
therefore looking at all options to make our railways work better for
passengers with nothing ruled out, including whether the
not-for-dividend model that works for rail infrastructure should be
extended to rail services."
END QUOTE
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state...>

I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe they've conveniently forgotten to
mention how they will achieve it without tripping over EU rules which
will come as an "unexpected surprise" when they try it ?

Cannot the operating company and the infrastructure nonetheless be
state-owned?

Network Rail is a State Monopoly in everything but name.  The Railways
are as Government Controlled as they have ever been.  Why would the UK
go back to the dark days of British Railways?   Better IMO to allow
operating companies to buy the infrastructure.  Then drop franchising,
allow history to take its course (given neccessary regulation and
grants for desirable, but loss-making services).

18% fare saving? As pointed out elsewhere TOCs get less than a £1 slice of every fare sold. Just what will the Government make the savings on?  We've already seen what happens when they take over the specification and ordering of stock. Each IEP coach will cost us £9,000,000. (Look at the terms of the ECML consultation and the announced costs to date).
Labour is only considering the idea, it's as likely to happen as us putting a man on Mars in 2013.

Do you mean theTOC's profit margin is less than 1% of fare revenue or
something like that?
McNulty did look at this and concluded that the savings from private
v.s public were greater than what was taken out and given to
shareholders. As you mention, DfT rolling stock procurement, or indeed
other government PFI deals are hardly great advertisements for state
efficiency. However their idea of a publicly owned corporation is
quite different to the current DfT structure and the point about
saving £150m per year in lower debt interest looks perfectly sound.
McNulty doesn't touch this topic.
Of course before Labour are ever likely to get to power, most of the
big franchises will have been renewed by the current government, so
other than offering to absorb the huge credit card bill that NR have
run up, there won't be much of this report left to implement.
It is also worth remembering there isn't really such a thing as an
'independent' thinkthank. This report is heavily sponsored by the
trade unions, while the body that wrote it is very much of the
sustainable transport i.e 'not car' persuasion.
If I were to try and find some more successful models of public rail
transport (than National Rail) they might be London Overground
(privately operated, publicly tendered to a very fine level of detail)
and Swiss Railways (mostly publicly owned, vertically integrated
corporations). Given how much of the UK railway operation is loss
making, I am wary of how a more lightly regulated, vertically
integrated 'Big Four' grouping of privately owned local monopolies
might work out, if that is along the lines of what you suggest?

This union sponsored report being very coy about pay and many thousands of final salary pensions being taken on by the public sector. I wonder why?

[Martin Edwards]

Post by e27002
Network Rail is a State Monopoly in everything but name. The Railways
are as Government Controlled as they have ever been. Why would the UK
go back to the dark days of British Railways? Better IMO to allow
operating companies to buy the infrastructure. Then drop franchising,
allow history to take its course (given neccessary regulation and
grants for desirable, but loss-making services).

Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.

[allantracy]

Post by Martin Edwards
Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

[Martin Edwards]

Post by allantracy

Post by Martin Edwards
Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

There is something to what you say. The railways were saved first by
compulsory amalgamation in 1925, then by nationalization in 1947, by
which time three of the four companies were going out of business. Even
Margaret Thatcher stopped short of privatization, being a somewhat
cannier Friedmanite than her epigones (I'll give her that much).

[bob]

Post by allantracy

Post by Martin Edwards
Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

There is something to what you say.  The railways were saved first by
compulsory amalgamation in 1925, then by nationalization in 1947, by
which time three of the four companies were going out of business.  Even
Margaret Thatcher stopped short of privatization, being a somewhat
cannier Friedmanite than her epigones (I'll give her that much).

A major part of the financial problems the railways faced in the 1930s
and later was that they were subject to government regulation of
passenger fares and freight tarrifs, and subject to common carrier
obligations, that were created when the railways were effectively
regional monopolies, but that were no longer appropriate when
motorised road traffic provided effective competition. Railways could
not turn away freight that was expensive to transport (common carrier)
and could not price it off (freight rates were controlled by
government), nor could they increase rates on what should have been
profitable traffic. That's before the lack of payment for wartime
traffic loads are considered.

Robin

[t***@davidhwild.me.uk]

In article

Post by bob
A major part of the financial problems the railways faced in the 1930s
and later was that they were subject to government regulation of
passenger fares and freight tarrifs, and subject to common carrier
obligations, that were created when the railways were effectively
regional monopolies, but that were no longer appropriate when
motorised road traffic provided effective competition. Railways could
not turn away freight that was expensive to transport (common carrier)
and could not price it off (freight rates were controlled by
government), nor could they increase rates on what should have been
profitable traffic. That's before the lack of payment for wartime
traffic loads are considered.

An additional burdenh was that the railways had to publih their rate, o a
haulier could find the railwa' price and then undercut it.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by bob

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by allantracy

Post by Martin Edwards
Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

There is something to what you say. The railways were saved first by
compulsory amalgamation in 1925, then by nationalization in 1947, by
which time three of the four companies were going out of business. Even
Margaret Thatcher stopped short of privatization, being a somewhat
cannier Friedmanite than her epigones (I'll give her that much).

A major part of the financial problems the railways faced in the 1930s
and later was that they were subject to government regulation of
passenger fares and freight tarrifs, and subject to common carrier
obligations, that were created when the railways were effectively
regional monopolies, but that were no longer appropriate when
motorised road traffic provided effective competition. Railways could
not turn away freight that was expensive to transport (common carrier)
and could not price it off (freight rates were controlled by
government), nor could they increase rates on what should have been
profitable traffic. That's before the lack of payment for wartime
traffic loads are considered.
Robin

I'm sure I knew that a long time ago but thanks for the update. :-)

[77002]

Post by allantracy

Post by Martin Edwards
Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

Coming from a hard-line marxist the poster's remark is particularly
appropriate. Everywhere his philosophy has taken power, death and
misery have followed (Russia, the PRC, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.,
etc.).

Perhaps the greatest example of the difference between socialism and
freedom is the Korean Peninsula. North of the DMZ is a giant
concentration camp. There the people are forced to fawn over their
incompetent "leader". Their years pass in hunger and missery.

To the south of the DMZ there flourishes a modern nation. The people
there enjoy freedom and increasing prosperity. Periodically they
elect their leaders. Their goods are a byword for quality around the
world.

Friedman vs. marx, wow that is a hard choice.

[b***@boltar.world]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 04:13:38 -0700 (PDT)

Post by 77002

Post by allantracy
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

Coming from a hard-line marxist the poster's remark is particularly
appropriate. Everywhere his philosophy has taken power, death and
misery have followed (Russia, the PRC, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.,
etc.).

Ah , but the traditional lefty get-out clause there would be that the
problems in those countries are down to corrupt government. Conveniently
forgetting that human nature is a core part of any society and its government.
This was something that marx conveniently forgot about in his treatise that
assumed people were robotic simpletons all marching to the same tune and all
putting the common good above themselves and their familes. Yeah , right.

Post by 77002
Friedman vs. marx, wow that is a hard choice.

Marx is a simple solution to a complex problem and hence doesn't require you
to think - that makes it the easy option for braindead left wingers.

B2003

[Charles Ellson]

Post by 77002

Post by allantracy

Post by Martin Edwards
Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

Coming from a hard-line marxist the poster's remark is particularly
appropriate. Everywhere his philosophy has taken power, death and
misery have followed (Russia, the PRC, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.,
etc.).
Perhaps the greatest example of the difference between socialism and
freedom is the Korean Peninsula. North of the DMZ is a giant
concentration camp. There the people are forced to fawn over their
incompetent "leader". Their years pass in hunger and missery.
To the south of the DMZ there flourishes a modern nation.

Which also got there by methods involving lorry loads of their
citizens disappearing overnight and never being seen again as can be
found in the more comprehensive commercial photo libraries, e.g.
"Suspected South Korean traitors are herded into lorries on their way
to execution" in http://avaxnews.com/educative/Korean_War_1.html
Neither of the local sides were angels.

Post by 77002
The people
there enjoy freedom and increasing prosperity. Periodically they
elect their leaders. Their goods are a byword for quality around the
world.
Friedman vs. marx, wow that is a hard choice.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by 77002

Post by allantracy

Post by Martin Edwards
Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

Coming from a hard-line marxist the poster's remark is particularly
appropriate.

To whom do you refer?

Everywhere his philosophy has taken power, death and

Post by 77002
misery have followed (Russia, the PRC, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.,
etc.).
Perhaps the greatest example of the difference between socialism and
freedom is the Korean Peninsula. North of the DMZ is a giant
concentration camp. There the people are forced to fawn over their
incompetent "leader". Their years pass in hunger and missery.
To the south of the DMZ there flourishes a modern nation. The people
there enjoy freedom and increasing prosperity. Periodically they
elect their leaders. Their goods are a byword for quality around the
world.
Friedman vs. marx, wow that is a hard choice.

This may have been true for a few years while the state protected
nascent industries, but the "free" market system has now been imposed
and the Road to Serfdom has been taken.

[Bevan Price]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Bruce
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control
Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services
Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.

I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe they've conveniently forgotten to
mention how they will achieve it without tripping over EU rules which
will come as an "unexpected surprise" when they try it ?

Yes, it is just as believable as Harold Wilson & co. saying they will
halt the Beeching closures. But as for the EU - sooner or later, we will
get a UK government that will tell EU precisely what to do with their
policies. A lot of people are getting fed up with EU meddling in what
they consider to be matters for our own government.

Bevan

[Charles Ellson]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 15:42:21 +0100, Bevan Price

Post by Bevan Price

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Bruce
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control
Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services
Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.

I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe they've conveniently forgotten to
mention how they will achieve it without tripping over EU rules which
will come as an "unexpected surprise" when they try it ?

Yes, it is just as believable as Harold Wilson & co. saying they will
halt the Beeching closures. But as for the EU - sooner or later, we will
get a UK government that will tell EU precisely what to do with their
policies. A lot of people are getting fed up with EU meddling in what
they consider to be matters for our own government.

Swings and roundabouts. That "lot of people" conveniently forget about
the amount of exports enabled by "EU meddling" and seem to be more
concerned with turning the UK into a remote-controlled satellite of
Uncle Sam than with re-establishing any kind of self-sufficiency.

[Bruce]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 15:42:21 +0100, Bevan Price

Post by Bevan Price

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Bruce
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control
Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services
Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.

I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe they've conveniently forgotten to
mention how they will achieve it without tripping over EU rules which
will come as an "unexpected surprise" when they try it ?

Yes, it is just as believable as Harold Wilson & co. saying they will
halt the Beeching closures. But as for the EU - sooner or later, we will
get a UK government that will tell EU precisely what to do with their
policies. A lot of people are getting fed up with EU meddling in what
they consider to be matters for our own government.

Swings and roundabouts. That "lot of people" conveniently forget about
the amount of exports enabled by "EU meddling" and seem to be more
concerned with turning the UK into a remote-controlled satellite of
Uncle Sam than with re-establishing any kind of self-sufficiency.

On the contrary, most people now recognise that over 50% of British
exports go to other EU countries and that only a tiny fraction of our
exports go to the USA. The UK is also a major market for goods from
other EU countries.

What people here don't want is a United States of Europe. The
ever-closer monetary, fiscal and political union that is being touted
as the solution to the crisis in the Eurozone is exactly what most
British people don't want.

In 1973, the UK joined a Common Market with a view to increasing trade
with other European countries at a time when our markets in the
Commonwealth were diminishing. However, our politicians were less
than honest with us because the treaty we signed also pointed the way
to an eventual political union which is now getting ever closer
because of the Euro crisis.

The UK needs to take a step back from those countries that want
political union, but at the same time both the UK and the rest of the
EU need free trade. The answer seems obvious: the UK should rejoin
the EFTA/EEA countries including Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland and
remain in the Single Market while not being a member of the EU.

[b***@boltar.world]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:01:27 +0100

Post by Bruce
What people here don't want is a United States of Europe. The
ever-closer monetary, fiscal and political union that is being touted
as the solution to the crisis in the Eurozone is exactly what most
British people don't want.

Political union won't happen. There are certain countries that will never
accept being de facto controlled by germany. If you think the east european
countries that have just escaped from the yoke of the USSR will be happy to be
run from Berlin, sorry , I mean Brussels, then you're dreaming. If riots
like that can happen in a laid back country like greece imagine what can
happen in warsaw or prague with their history of uprising.

The federal USA worked because it was essentially all the same culture and
nationality from east to west. Europe isn't. If the eurocrats want massive
civil unrest across the continent then sure, go for political union.

B2003

[77002]

Post by b***@boltar.world
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:01:27 +0100

What people here don't want is a United States of Europe.  The
ever-closer monetary, fiscal and political union that is being touted
as the solution to the crisis in the Eurozone is exactly what most
British people don't want.

Political union won't happen. There are certain countries that will never
accept being de facto controlled by germany. If you think the east european
countries that have just escaped from the yoke of the USSR will be happy to be
run from Berlin, sorry , I mean Brussels, then you're dreaming. If riots
like that can happen in a laid back country like greece imagine what can
happen in warsaw or prague with their history of uprising.
The federal USA worked because it was essentially all the same culture and
nationality from east to west. Europe isn't. If the eurocrats want massive
civil unrest across the continent then sure, go for political union.

Given the robust state of the Australian economy in recent years, the
UK would have been better off staying with what she had.

[Charlie Hulme]

Post by Bruce
The UK needs to take a step back from those countries that want
political union, but at the same time both the UK and the rest of the
EU need free trade.

Are there any countries whose citizens, other than a few
politicians, actually want a political union? It seems an absurd
idea to me.

Charlie

[Bruce]

Post by Charlie Hulme

Post by Bruce
The UK needs to take a step back from those countries that want
political union, but at the same time both the UK and the rest of the
EU need free trade.

Are there any countries whose citizens, other than a few
politicians, actually want a political union? It seems an absurd
idea to me.

It seems absurd to me too, but the idea seems to be to bind Germany
into a political union that will ensure it never again militarily
dominates Europe in the way it tried to in the last century. The UK
doesn't share that desire because Britain was never invaded by Germany
- unlike so many mainland European countries that were.

The problem is, however, that Germany has now become so economically
dominant that its leaders feel they can and should dictate to other
countries, especially those who are struggling in the Euro zone. If
the UK had joined the Euro, Germany would have been dictating to us as
well as Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece, telling us to "be
more German". I can't imagine people in the UK tolerating that.

[Guy Gorton]

Post by Bruce

Post by Charlie Hulme

Post by Bruce
The UK needs to take a step back from those countries that want
political union, but at the same time both the UK and the rest of the
EU need free trade.

Are there any countries whose citizens, other than a few
politicians, actually want a political union? It seems an absurd
idea to me.

It seems absurd to me too, but the idea seems to be to bind Germany
into a political union that will ensure it never again militarily
dominates Europe in the way it tried to in the last century. The UK
doesn't share that desire because Britain was never invaded by Germany
- unlike so many mainland European countries that were.
The problem is, however, that Germany has now become so economically
dominant that its leaders feel they can and should dictate to other
countries, especially those who are struggling in the Euro zone. If
the UK had joined the Euro, Germany would have been dictating to us as
well as Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece, telling us to "be
more German". I can't imagine people in the UK tolerating that.

It has become clear to me in recent weeks that the German Chancellor
is seeking to do much of what Hitler wanted to do, but without firing
a shot. Not some of the nastier things like Belsen, of course, but
where would the line be drawn? The Germans are good at drawing lines
- even invisible ones on pavements that you do not step over when you
want to cross the road!


Guy Gorton

[Bruce]

Post by Guy Gorton

Post by Bruce

Post by Charlie Hulme

Post by Bruce
The UK needs to take a step back from those countries that want
political union, but at the same time both the UK and the rest of the
EU need free trade.

Are there any countries whose citizens, other than a few
politicians, actually want a political union? It seems an absurd
idea to me.

It seems absurd to me too, but the idea seems to be to bind Germany
into a political union that will ensure it never again militarily
dominates Europe in the way it tried to in the last century. The UK
doesn't share that desire because Britain was never invaded by Germany
- unlike so many mainland European countries that were.
The problem is, however, that Germany has now become so economically
dominant that its leaders feel they can and should dictate to other
countries, especially those who are struggling in the Euro zone. If
the UK had joined the Euro, Germany would have been dictating to us as
well as Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece, telling us to "be
more German". I can't imagine people in the UK tolerating that.

It has become clear to me in recent weeks that the German Chancellor
is seeking to do much of what Hitler wanted to do, but without firing
a shot.

I'm sure the Greeks would agree. Apparently there are many posters in
Greece showing Angela Merkel in several varieties of Nazi uniform.

I can understand Germany's frustration about various other Euro
countries not having followed German precepts about how they should
run their economies while in a common currency, but the extent and
depth of the austerity needed to get these countries' economies back
to where the Germans think they ought to be is proving politically
very difficult to manage. One also has to ask why the Germans
consented to these countries joining the Euro in the first place when
it was obvious that they should not have qualified for membership.

[Roland Perry]

Are there any countries whose citizens, other than a few politicians,
actually want a political union? It seems an absurd idea to me.

I believe the problem is the Euro, and without political union there
won't be a monetary union (because the poorer countries run up debts
they can't afford, and have to be bailed out).

[bob]

Post by Bevan Price
Yes, it is just as believable as Harold Wilson & co. saying they will
halt the Beeching closures. But as for the EU - sooner or later, we will
get a UK government that will tell EU precisely what to do with their
policies. A lot of people are getting fed up with EU meddling in what
they consider to be matters for our own government.

My perception is that a lot of what people are getting fed up with is
either organisations with "Europe" in their names that are nothing to
do with the EU (eg European Court of Human Rights), or things that HMG
chose to do, and claim to be a requirement of the EU, but when the EU
directives in question are examined, are found to contain no such
requirement (eg Railtrack). Personally I see as many examples of the
EU preventing the UK government from doing stupid or wrong things at
least as often as regulations coming out of the EU that are
objectionable (and plenty of the objectionable regulations appear to
have been created with the blessing of UK commissioners in Europe).

Robin

[allantracy]

Post by Bevan Price
Yes, it is just as believable as Harold Wilson & co. saying they will
halt the Beeching closures. But as for the EU - sooner or later, we will
get a UK government that will tell EU precisely what to do with their
policies. A lot of people are getting fed up with EU meddling in what
they consider to be matters for our own government.

Possibly, as early as the next election if news reports today are to
be believed.

However, even if we came out, it’s still highly likely that we would
remain members of the single market, a basic condition of membership
being that we could not engage in the protectionism of closing off any
of our markets, such as railway franchises, to other members of the
single market.

[77002]

Post by allantracy

Post by Bevan Price
Yes, it is just as believable as Harold Wilson & co. saying they will
halt the Beeching closures. But as for the EU - sooner or later, we will
get a UK government that will tell EU precisely what to do with their
policies. A lot of people are getting fed up with EU meddling in what
they consider to be matters for our own government.

Possibly, as early as the next election if news reports today are to
be believed.
However, even if we came out, it’s still highly likely that we would
remain members of the single market, a basic condition of membership
being that we could not engage in the protectionism of closing off any
of our markets, such as railway franchises, to other members of the
single market.

That day cannot come soon enough. Although whether our former trading
partners in the Commonwealth will want to renew trade with the UK
remains to be seen.

[d***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by 77002

However, even if we came out, it’s still highly likely that we would
remain members of the single market, a basic condition of membership
being that we could not engage in the protectionism of closing off any
of our markets, such as railway franchises, to other members of the
single market.

That day cannot come soon enough. Although whether our former trading
partners in the Commonwealth will want to renew trade with the UK
remains to be seen.

Cannot see any reason why they would really want to.
Many only bought British in the past because of direct political
control in some and Nostalgia for " the old country" in others.
Even if the UK had not got so closely involved with Europe I still
think that countries who got control of their own destiny back would
still be buying more Toyotas than Land Rovers. And Australia and New
Zealand now have may citizens whose ties do not have any connection
with Britain. Ironically if companies like Land Rover and what
remains of British steel etc do start to re penetrate such markets it
may be because of their present Indian ownership and no longer the
products of a former occupier which rightly or wrongly is how former
British control is often seen.

G.Harman

[Roland Perry]

Post by Bruce
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control
Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services

Blair and Prescott promised lots of things last time around, and failed
to deliver. Why would Labour act differently next time (assuming they
ever get a next time).

[Alex Potter]

Post by Roland Perry
Blair and Prescott promised lots of things last time around, and failed
to deliver. Why would Labour act differently next time (assuming they
ever get a next time).

Given that it's impossible to discern any difference between the parties,
I doubt that they would.

The article described something less than complete re-nationalisation
anyway, so there'd still be plenty trough available for their mates.

[Scott]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:11:06 +0000 (UTC), Alex Potter

Post by Alex Potter

Post by Roland Perry
Blair and Prescott promised lots of things last time around, and failed
to deliver. Why would Labour act differently next time (assuming they
ever get a next time).

Given that it's impossible to discern any difference between the parties,
I doubt that they would.
The article described something less than complete re-nationalisation
anyway, so there'd still be plenty trough available for their mates.

Yes, the subject heading is rather misleading. The railway network is
already subject to public control, in the sense that it is heavily
regulated. Ther article seems to be referring to ownership. The
suggestion that labour has 'backed' the plans is misleading also as it
seems to be a consultation document rather than a policy that has been
adopted.

[Recliner]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 10:23:21 +0100, Scott

Post by Scott
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:11:06 +0000 (UTC), Alex Potter

Post by Alex Potter

Post by Roland Perry
Blair and Prescott promised lots of things last time around, and failed
to deliver. Why would Labour act differently next time (assuming they
ever get a next time).

Given that it's impossible to discern any difference between the parties,
I doubt that they would.
The article described something less than complete re-nationalisation
anyway, so there'd still be plenty trough available for their mates.

Yes, the subject heading is rather misleading. The railway network is
already subject to public control, in the sense that it is heavily
regulated. Ther article seems to be referring to ownership. The
suggestion that labour has 'backed' the plans is misleading also as it
seems to be a consultation document rather than a policy that has been
adopted.

It's a document that was funded by the main rail unions, so the Labour
party has to show obedience to its paymasters in the short-term, but
can duly ignore it when push comes to shove.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Recliner
It's a document that was funded by the main rail unions, so the Labour
party has to show obedience to its paymasters in the short-term, but
can duly ignore it when push comes to shove.

Indeed. Forget ye not the decade and a bit of Labour lies.

I would support such a policy, but I have no trust whatsoever for the
Labour Party to implement it nor to do anything else they say they will do.
They had their chance, but they will never receive my vote as a result of
their conduct during the last period in Government.

Neil

[Charles Ellson]

On 1 Jul 2012 14:53:33 GMT, Neil Williams

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Recliner
It's a document that was funded by the main rail unions, so the Labour
party has to show obedience to its paymasters

The same Labour Party that has clearly demonstrated its willingness to
bite the hand that allegedly feeds it ?

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Recliner
in the short-term, but
can duly ignore it when push comes to shove.

Indeed. Forget ye not the decade and a bit of Labour lies.
I would support such a policy, but I have no trust whatsoever for the
Labour Party to implement it nor to do anything else they say they will do.
They had their chance, but they will never receive my vote as a result of
their conduct during the last period in Government.
Neil

[Owain]

Post by Charles Ellson
The same Labour Party that has clearly demonstrated its willingness to

.. give honours to the hands that allegedly actually feed it?

Owain

[Charles Ellson]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 16:42:58 -0700 (PDT), Owain

Post by Owain

Post by Charles Ellson
The same Labour Party that has clearly demonstrated its willingness to

.. give honours to the hands that

...shamelessly bung whoever is in power ?

Post by Owain
allegedly actually feed it?
Owain

[allantracy]

Indeed.  Forget ye not the decade and a bit of Labour lies.
I would support such a policy, but I have no trust whatsoever for the
Labour Party to implement it nor to do anything else they say they will do.
 They had their chance, but they will never receive my vote as a result of
their conduct during the last period in Government.

Despite, what many may think here I have no particular party
affiliation.

I am now old enough to have lived through two lengthy terms of Labour
administration and as a result have grown to loath and despise them.

Most particularly, the modern middle class Guardian version, dominated
by the public sector non-professions, obsessed with PC and diversity,
because basically they have jobs with too much time on their hands.

Consequently, I vote against Labour rather than for anything else.

Unlike any of our other major (or minor) political parties, Labour are
an undemocratic fiefdom and like all other fiefdoms, since the
beginning of history, they inevitably decline into corruption and
incompetence.

In short, they are dysfunctional by design, never better demonstrated
than by the deviant plotting and insurrection that was the rise and
fall of the Gordon Brown regime.

That could not only have never happened in any of the other parties,
but even if it had, it would have been swiftly put out of its misery
rather than the headless core that has now been left lying around.

Labour badly needs to become a ‘one party member one vote’ political
party and, until it does, should never be trusted with political
office again.

[Bevan Price]

Post by allantracy

Post by Neil Williams
Indeed. Forget ye not the decade and a bit of Labour lies.

Unlike any of our other major (or minor) political parties, Labour are
an undemocratic fiefdom and like all other fiefdoms, since the
beginning of history, they inevitably decline into corruption and
incompetence.

The Tories are little different, with many of their MP's opposing a
democratically elected House of Lords. For years, both lots have often
pandered to the wishes of their paymasters. I am not, & never have been
a member of any political parties. I vote against the tories, in part
because of what I learned from my family, for example, a grandfather who
lost his job for daring to stand up against bosses who paid peanuts to
workers whilst they (the bosses) had lives of leisure and luxury.

Bevan

[Robert]

Post by Bevan Price

Post by allantracy

Post by Neil Williams
Indeed. Forget ye not the decade and a bit of Labour lies.

Unlike any of our other major (or minor) political parties, Labour are
an undemocratic fiefdom and like all other fiefdoms, since the
beginning of history, they inevitably decline into corruption and
incompetence.

The Tories are little different, with many of their MP's opposing a
democratically elected House of Lords. For years, both lots have often
pandered to the wishes of their paymasters. I am not, & never have been
a member of any political parties. I vote against the tories, in part
because of what I learned from my family, for example, a grandfather who
lost his job for daring to stand up against bosses who paid peanuts to
workers whilst they (the bosses) had lives of leisure and luxury.
Bevan

Living in the past, eh? Elections should be about selecting the MP who best represents your interests for the future - not for refighting battles which must have happened many decades ago.

--
Robert Cox

[Bevan Price]

Post by Robert

Post by Bevan Price

Post by allantracy

Post by Neil Williams
Indeed. Forget ye not the decade and a bit of Labour lies.

Unlike any of our other major (or minor) political parties, Labour are
an undemocratic fiefdom and like all other fiefdoms, since the
beginning of history, they inevitably decline into corruption and
incompetence.

The Tories are little different, with many of their MP's opposing a
democratically elected House of Lords. For years, both lots have often
pandered to the wishes of their paymasters. I am not, & never have been
a member of any political parties. I vote against the tories, in part
because of what I learned from my family, for example, a grandfather who
lost his job for daring to stand up against bosses who paid peanuts to
workers whilst they (the bosses) had lives of leisure and luxury.
Bevan

Living in the past, eh? Elections should be about selecting the MP who best represents your interests for the future - not for refighting battles which must have happened many decades ago.
--
Robert Cox

No, living for the future. None of them are trustworthy, they all make
pre-election prmoises that they often conveniently forget if they win.
But I just trust Tories even less than the other major parties. I think
that the only time I might even consider voting Tory was if the only
alternatives were people like the Greens or Friends of the Earth.

Bevan

[Robert]

Post by Bevan Price

Post by Robert

Post by Bevan Price

Post by allantracy

Post by Neil Williams
Indeed. Forget ye not the decade and a bit of Labour lies.

Unlike any of our other major (or minor) political parties, Labour are
an undemocratic fiefdom and like all other fiefdoms, since the
beginning of history, they inevitably decline into corruption and
incompetence.

The Tories are little different, with many of their MP's opposing a
democratically elected House of Lords. For years, both lots have often
pandered to the wishes of their paymasters. I am not, & never have been
a member of any political parties. I vote against the tories, in part
because of what I learned from my family, for example, a grandfather who
lost his job for daring to stand up against bosses who paid peanuts to
workers whilst they (the bosses) had lives of leisure and luxury.
Bevan

Living in the past, eh? Elections should be about selecting the MP who best represents your interests for the future - not for refighting battles which must have happened many decades ago.
--
Robert Cox

No, living for the future. None of them are trustworthy, they all make
pre-election prmoises that they often conveniently forget if they win.
But I just trust Tories even less than the other major parties. I think
that the only time I might even consider voting Tory was if the only
alternatives were people like the Greens or Friends of the Earth.
Bevan

Fair 'nuff - I can accept that. But there is a problem with the 'promises' - I think very few candidates make definite promises these days about a specific action - they have been caught too often either doing something they said they wouldn't or not doing something they said they would. Circumstances change - "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" is probably apocryphal but it neatly encapsulates the problem.

--
Robert Cox

[e27002]

Post by Alex Potter

Post by Roland Perry
Blair and Prescott promised lots of things last time around, and failed
to deliver. Why would Labour act differently next time (assuming they
ever get a next time).

Given that it's impossible to discern any difference between the parties,
I doubt that they would.

You hit that one on the head.

Post by Alex Potter
The article described something less than  complete re-nationalisation
anyway, so there'd still be plenty trough available for their mates.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by e27002

Post by Alex Potter

Post by Roland Perry
Blair and Prescott promised lots of things last time around, and failed
to deliver. Why would Labour act differently next time (assuming they
ever get a next time).

Given that it's impossible to discern any difference between the parties,
I doubt that they would.

You hit that one on the head.

Post by Alex Potter
The article described something less than complete re-nationalisation
anyway, so there'd still be plenty trough available for their mates.

While this may be true, you have to believe that people can change. The
composition of the PLP has changed and will change even more if they win.

[®i©ardo]

Post by e27002

Post by Alex Potter

Post by Roland Perry
Blair and Prescott promised lots of things last time around, and failed
to deliver. Why would Labour act differently next time (assuming they
ever get a next time).

Given that it's impossible to discern any difference between the parties,
I doubt that they would.

You hit that one on the head.

Post by Alex Potter
The article described something less than complete re-nationalisation
anyway, so there'd still be plenty trough available for their mates.

While this may be true, you have to believe that people can change. The
composition of the PLP has changed and will change even more if they win.

But will it be for the better?

[Martin Edwards]

Post by ®i©ardo

Post by e27002

Post by Alex Potter

Post by Roland Perry
Blair and Prescott promised lots of things last time around, and failed
to deliver. Why would Labour act differently next time (assuming they
ever get a next time).

Given that it's impossible to discern any difference between the parties,
I doubt that they would.

You hit that one on the head.

Post by Alex Potter
The article described something less than complete re-nationalisation
anyway, so there'd still be plenty trough available for their mates.

While this may be true, you have to believe that people can change. The
composition of the PLP has changed and will change even more if they win.

But will it be for the better?

I don't know. Like I said, one can only hope. Miliband is a former
Harvard lecturer and the alumnus of a London comprehensive which, at
least at the time, had a wide social mix. Cameron offers Eton, Oxford,
public relations and Conservative Central Office. What has he done, really?

[Neil Williams]

Post by Bruce
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control

If you believe that...

Neil

[Bruce]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Bruce
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control

If you believe that...

Don't shoot the messenger. It was posted without comment.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Bruce
Don't shoot the messenger. It was posted without comment.

I was commenting on the party, not the messenger ;). The "you" was
generic...

Neil

[Molossus]

Post by Bruce
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control
Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services
Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.
An independent thinktank report out on Monday, which puts forward a
detailed plan for effective renationalisation, was warmly welcomed by
the party's transport spokeswoman, Maria Eagle, who said the study was
timely and put forward a "coherent case for reform".
The changes would amount to the biggest overhaul of the train system
since British Rail was broken up in the mid-1990s and be seen as a
deliberate pitch by Ed Miliband's party for millions of "commuter
votes" in key marginal seats ahead of the next election.
If adopted by Labour it would mean ending franchises as they come up
for renewal on the east coast, west coast and midland mainlines –
ousting the likes of Sir Richard Branson from one of the country's
most profitable routes – and bringing the running of trains and
infrastructure under one publicly owned and accountable company.
Entitled Rebuilding Rail, the report by Transport for Quality of Life
argues that rail operations and infrastructure should be reintegrated,
franchising phased out and a democratic role given to passengers, the
workforce and elected local and regional authorities.
It says that the current fragmented system – under which the publicly
owned Network Rail runs the infrastructure and private companies
compete for franchise contracts to run trains – is failing taxpayers
and passengers while benefiting private train operators and their
shareholders, who are guaranteed taxpayer funds if profits fall below
a certain level.
The authors estimate that £1.2bn of public money has been lost each
year as a direct result of privatisation and fragmentation, money that
could have allowed fares to be 18% lower than at present. UK rail
passengers, who already pay the highest fares in Europe, face further
increases of at least 6% from next January.
Making it clear that Labour agreed with many ideas in the report,
which was funded by the main rail unions, Eagle said: "Under the
current system we have unaccountable train companies given a licence
to print money to operate a monopoly service at high cost to
passengers in an industry that still relies on £4bn from taxpayers
every year.
"Increasingly franchises are run by subsidiaries of the German, French
and Dutch state railways with profits helping deliver ticket prices in
those countries that are a third of ours. Labour's policy review is
therefore looking at all options to make our railways work better for
passengers with nothing ruled out, including whether the
not-for-dividend model that works for rail infrastructure should be
extended to rail services."
END QUOTE
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>

Read the report, it's easier.

http://www.transportforqualityoflife.com/u/files/120630_Rebuilding_Rail_Final_Report_print_version.pdf

[Graham Nye]

Post by Bruce
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control
The changes would amount to the biggest overhaul of the train system
since British Rail was broken up in the mid-1990s and be seen as a
deliberate pitch by Ed Miliband's party for millions of "commuter
votes" in key marginal seats ahead of the next election.

Will we be getting back the curling sandwiches and the Winter of
Discontent?

[Owain]

Post by Graham Nye
Will we be getting back the curling sandwiches and the Winter of
Discontent?

And 'blue days' and 'white days' or are they now banned under race
relations?

Owain

[Charles Ellson]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 16:41:35 -0700 (PDT), Owain

Post by Owain

Post by Graham Nye
Will we be getting back the curling sandwiches and the Winter of
Discontent?

And 'blue days' and 'white days' or are they now banned under race
relations?

Have the usual suspects complained on behalf of the Smurfs ?

[allantracy]

Post by Bruce
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control

Labour has, by now, a long record of opposing Tory reforms, in
opposition, around the public sector and then failing to do a single
thing about them when, or if, returned to office.

Thanks to their union ties, the Labour party is the real conservative
party nowadays in this country, having failed to produce any real
radical changes of any consequence for years.

Apart from completely f**king up the nation’s finances the only thing
I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight,
never see being undone was civil partnerships.

I would have added to that list the commendable decision to create an
independent BoE but as that particular piece of dysfunctional wazzock
brain implementation continues to unravel by the day, to the point of
needing a complete rebuild, the credit counter rather diminishes.

[77002]

Post by allantracy

Post by Bruce
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control

Labour has, by now, a long record of opposing Tory reforms, in
opposition, around the public sector and then failing to do a single
thing about them when, or if, returned to office.

They just play the political game.

Post by allantracy
Thanks to their union ties, the Labour party is the real conservative
party nowadays in this country, having failed to produce any real
radical changes of any consequence for years.

Your joking. The UK has forgotten what Conservatism is.

Post by allantracy
Apart from completely f**king up the nation’s finances the only thing
I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight,
never see being undone was civil partnerships.

There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Post by allantracy
I would have added to that list the commendable decision to create an
independent BoE but as that particular piece of dysfunctional wazzock
brain implementation continues to unravel by the day, to the point of
needing a complete rebuild, the credit counter rather diminishes.

That move in and of itself was good. It is pity the UK does not have
people of the calibre needed to run an independent currency
controlling bank.

[Alistair Gunn]

Post by 77002
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Alistair Gunn

Post by 77002
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by 77002
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Buggered if I know...

[bob]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by 77002
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick!  Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

Robin

[77002]

Post by bob

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by 77002
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick!  Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. One
would expect that to be the norm.

[Nick Leverton]

Post by 77002

Post by bob

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by 77002
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick!  Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. One
would expect that to be the norm.

I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two
or more people to be joined in union.

Nick

[77002]

Post by Nick Leverton

Post by bob

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by 77002
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick!  Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage.  One
would expect that to be the norm.

I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two
or more people to be joined in union.

One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep
conviction that they are right for each other. Although I agree it is
entirely, and only, their business. That is assuming they are over
the age of consent.

[Nick Leverton]

Post by 77002

Post by Nick Leverton

Post by bob

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by 77002
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick!  Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage.  One
would expect that to be the norm.

I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two
or more people to be joined in union.

One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep
conviction that they are right for each other. Although I agree it is
entirely, and only, their business. That is assuming they are over
the age of consent.

Including, of course, the man and the other man ...

Nick

[e27002]

Post by Nick Leverton

Post by 77002

Post by Nick Leverton

Post by bob

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by 77002
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick!  Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage.  One
would expect that to be the norm.

I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two
or more people to be joined in union.

One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep
conviction that they are right for each other.  Although I agree it is
entirely, and only, their business.  That is assuming they are over
the age of consent.

Including, of course, the man and the other man ...

If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that
cannot be a marriage. A circle can never be a square.

[Eric]

Post by e27002
If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that
cannot be a marriage. A circle can never be a square.

So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the
English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an
honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it?

And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed
by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes
that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive.

Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts.

And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and
opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them.

E.

[e27002]

Post by Eric

Post by e27002
If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that
cannot be a marriage.  A circle can never be a square.

So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the
English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an
honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it?
And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed
by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes
that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive.
Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts.
And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and
opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them.

Sentiment mutual. Take your left field mishigas elsewhere.

[Eric]

Post by e27002

Post by Eric

Post by e27002
If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that
cannot be a marriage. ?A circle can never be a square.

So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the
English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an
honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it?
And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed
by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes
that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive.
Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts.
And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and
opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them.

Sentiment mutual. Take your left field mishigas elsewhere.

Yiddish insults now! Not even bad arguments any more. Often taken as a
sign that someone has no arguments left and can hope only for the last
word.

But then we know what you are like, and I should really have known
better than to speak to you at all.

E.

[e27002]

Post by Eric

Post by Eric

Post by e27002
If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that
cannot be a marriage. ?A circle can never be a square.

So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the
English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an
honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it?
And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed
by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes
that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive.
Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts.
And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and
opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them.

Sentiment mutual.  Take your left field mishigas elsewhere.

Yiddish insults now! Not even bad arguments any more. Often taken as a
sign that someone has no arguments left and can hope only for the last
word.
But then we know what you are like, and I should really have known
better than to speak to you at all.

You can dish it out but not take it? I do not expect you to share my
beliefs. But, I am as entitled to hold them, as you yours.

Your unpleasantness was not necessary. What makes you think we want
your commie, homo hugging, global warming, baby killing nonsense?

And, where were your "good" arguments?

[e27002]

Post by Eric

Post by Eric

Post by e27002
If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that
cannot be a marriage. ?A circle can never be a square.

So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the
English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an
honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it?
And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed
by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes
that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive.
Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts.
And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and
opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them.

Sentiment mutual.  Take your left field mishigas elsewhere.

Yiddish insults now! Not even bad arguments any more. Often taken as a
sign that someone has no arguments left and can hope only for the last
word.
But then we know what you are like, and I should really have known
better than to speak to you at all.

You can dish it out but not take it? I do not expect you to share my
beliefs. But, I am as entitled to hold them, as you yours.

Your unpleasantness was not necessary. What makes you think we want
your commie, homo hugging, global warming, baby killing nonsense?

Let me try one more time: "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Period".

And, where were your "good" arguments?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by e27002
Your unpleasantness was not necessary. What makes you think we want
your commie, homo hugging, global warming, baby killing nonsense?

Bingo!

[Nick Leverton]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002
Your unpleasantness was not necessary. What makes you think we want
your commie, homo hugging, global warming, baby killing nonsense?

Bingo!

:-)

Nick

[b***@boltar.world]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 22:56:33 -0700 (PDT)

Post by e27002
your commie, homo hugging, global warming, baby killing nonsense?

Yeah , global warming is all a big conspiracy.

Hows are the forest fires doing over there these days? Has the temp dropped
under 100F yet?

Post by e27002
Let me try one more time: "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Period".

Marriage is whatever its defined to be by the society it exists in, not
by some 2000 year old increasingly irrelevant book.

B2003

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Eric

Post by e27002

Post by Eric

Post by e27002
If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that
cannot be a marriage. ?A circle can never be a square.

So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the
English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an
honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it?
And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed
by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes
that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive.
Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts.
And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and
opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them.

Sentiment mutual. Take your left field mishigas elsewhere.

Yiddish insults now! Not even bad arguments any more. Often taken as a
sign that someone has no arguments left and can hope only for the last
word.
But then we know what you are like, and I should really have known
better than to speak to you at all.
E.

Let the meshuggah stew.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by e27002

Post by Eric

Post by e27002
If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that
cannot be a marriage. A circle can never be a square.

So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the
English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an
honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it?
And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed
by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes
that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive.
Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts.
And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and
opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them.

Sentiment mutual. Take your left field mishigas elsewhere.

Bist du Yid?

[Railsigns.co.uk]

Post by e27002
A circle can never be a square.

Ever seen an Irish "disc signal"?

http://www.railsigns.co.uk/pics/pic_iedy/pic_iedy.html

[Martin Edwards]

Post by e27002

Post by Nick Leverton

Post by 77002

Post by Nick Leverton

Post by 77002

Post by bob

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Alistair Gunn

Post by 77002
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. One
would expect that to be the norm.

I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two
or more people to be joined in union.

One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep
conviction that they are right for each other. Although I agree it is
entirely, and only, their business. That is assuming they are over
the age of consent.

Including, of course, the man and the other man ...

If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that
cannot be a marriage. A circle can never be a square.

While this is a valid etymological point, in this context it obfuscates
the issue.

[Sam Wilson]

In article

... A circle can never be a square.

I'm reminded of square sweets that look round, but of course that's
irrelevant to the argument.

Sam

[Charles Ellson]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 16:51:58 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton

Post by Nick Leverton

Post by 77002

Post by Nick Leverton

Post by bob

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by 77002
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick!  Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage.  One
would expect that to be the norm.

I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two
or more people to be joined in union.

One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep
conviction that they are right for each other. Although I agree it is
entirely, and only, their business. That is assuming they are over
the age of consent.

Including, of course, the man and the other man ...

If there's another man then the marriage is usually over for practical
purposes.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 16:51:58 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton

Post by Nick Leverton

Post by 77002

Post by Nick Leverton

Post by 77002

Post by bob

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Alistair Gunn

Post by 77002
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. One
would expect that to be the norm.

I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two
or more people to be joined in union.

One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep
conviction that they are right for each other. Although I agree it is
entirely, and only, their business. That is assuming they are over
the age of consent.

Including, of course, the man and the other man ...

If there's another man then the marriage is usually over for practical
purposes.

Not if you are an Eskimo...

[Martin Edwards]

Post by 77002

Post by bob

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Alistair Gunn

Post by 77002
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. One
would expect that to be the norm.

Okay, but if you called it "fag marriage" some bright spark would crack
a joke about cigarettes.

[Alistair Gunn]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Alistair Gunn

Post by 77002
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

AFAIK most of them couldn't care less what other consenting adults get up
to in the spare time? This libertarian certainly doesn't care if two, or
more, consenting adults want to get married ... Unless they're
expressing a desire to either get married, or not get married as the case
may be, *to me* I really don't see it as being any of my business!

[Martin Edwards]

Post by 77002

Post by allantracy
thing about them when, or if, returned to office.

They just play the political game.

Post by allantracy
Thanks to their union ties, the Labour party is the real conservative
party nowadays in this country, having failed to produce any real
radical changes of any consequence for years.

Your joking. The UK has forgotten what Conservatism is.

Post by allantracy
Apart from completely f**king up the nation’s finances the only thing
I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight,
never see being undone was civil partnerships.

There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

We've nearly been through the card now. How about capital punishment,
safety belts are dangerous and smoking is good for you?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by 77002

Post by allantracy
thing about them when, or if, returned to office.

They just play the political game.

Post by allantracy
Thanks to their union ties, the Labour party is the real conservative
party nowadays in this country, having failed to produce any real
radical changes of any consequence for years.

Your joking. The UK has forgotten what Conservatism is.

Post by allantracy
Apart from completely f**king up the nation’s finances the only thing
I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight,
never see being undone was civil partnerships.

There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

We've nearly been through the card now. How about capital punishment,
safety belts are dangerous and smoking is good for you?

Whatever you do, don't mention global warming!

[Charles Ellson]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 08:20:59 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by 77002

Post by allantracy
thing about them when, or if, returned to office.

They just play the political game.

Post by allantracy
Thanks to their union ties, the Labour party is the real conservative
party nowadays in this country, having failed to produce any real
radical changes of any consequence for years.

Your joking. The UK has forgotten what Conservatism is.

Post by allantracy
Apart from completely f**king up the nation’s finances the only thing
I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight,
never see being undone was civil partnerships.

There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

We've nearly been through the card now. How about capital punishment,
safety belts are dangerous and smoking is good for you?

Whatever you do, don't mention global warming!

Does anyone disagree that capital punishment is dangerous ? ;-)

[®i©ardo]

Post by 77002

Post by allantracy

Post by Bruce
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control

Labour has, by now, a long record of opposing Tory reforms, in
opposition, around the public sector and then failing to do a single
thing about them when, or if, returned to office.

They just play the political game.

Post by allantracy
Thanks to their union ties, the Labour party is the real conservative
party nowadays in this country, having failed to produce any real
radical changes of any consequence for years.

Your joking. The UK has forgotten what Conservatism is.

Post by allantracy
Apart from completely f**king up the nation’s finances the only thing
I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight,
never see being undone was civil partnerships.

There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Post by allantracy
I would have added to that list the commendable decision to create an
independent BoE but as that particular piece of dysfunctional wazzock
brain implementation continues to unravel by the day, to the point of
needing a complete rebuild, the credit counter rather diminishes.

That move in and of itself was good. It is pity the UK does not have
people of the calibre needed to run an independent currency
controlling bank.

Perhaps labour would have done better by not nationalising the Bank of
England in 1946?

[Martin Edwards]

Post by ®i©ardo

Post by 77002

Post by allantracy

Post by Bruce
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control

Labour has, by now, a long record of opposing Tory reforms, in
opposition, around the public sector and then failing to do a single
thing about them when, or if, returned to office.

They just play the political game.

Post by allantracy
Thanks to their union ties, the Labour party is the real conservative
party nowadays in this country, having failed to produce any real
radical changes of any consequence for years.

Your joking. The UK has forgotten what Conservatism is.

Post by allantracy
Apart from completely f**king up the nation’s finances the only thing
I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight,
never see being undone was civil partnerships.

There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Post by allantracy
I would have added to that list the commendable decision to create an
independent BoE but as that particular piece of dysfunctional wazzock
brain implementation continues to unravel by the day, to the point of
needing a complete rebuild, the credit counter rather diminishes.

That move in and of itself was good. It is pity the UK does not have
people of the calibre needed to run an independent currency
controlling bank.

Perhaps labour would have done better by not nationalising the Bank of
England in 1946?

Which was cured by privatising it. No, wait.............

[Alistair Gunn]

Apart from completely f**king up the nation???s finances the only thing
I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight,
never see being undone was civil partnerships.

Devolution (including the London Assembly & Mayor) was one of their
better ideas too, though as usual for any UK political party their
implementation was decidedly imperfect ...

I would have added to that list the commendable decision to create an
independent BoE but as that particular piece of dysfunctional wazzock
brain implementation continues to unravel by the day, to the point of
needing a complete rebuild, the credit counter rather diminishes.

The problem with the "independent" BofE was that whilst it was free to
set whatever interest rate it liked to hit the inflation target, it was
the Chancellor who in charge of said target. So all it really did was
result in the public not blaming the Chancellor when they didn't get the
interest rate they liked ...

[Charles Ellson]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 17:02:40 +0000 (UTC), Alistair Gunn

Post by Alistair Gunn

Apart from completely f**king up the nation???s finances the only thing
I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight,
never see being undone was civil partnerships.

Devolution (including the London Assembly & Mayor)

That isn't devolution, that is a jumped-up county council.

Post by Alistair Gunn
was one of their
better ideas too, though as usual for any UK political party their
implementation was decidedly imperfect ...

I would have added to that list the commendable decision to create an
independent BoE but as that particular piece of dysfunctional wazzock
brain implementation continues to unravel by the day, to the point of
needing a complete rebuild, the credit counter rather diminishes.

The problem with the "independent" BofE was that whilst it was free to
set whatever interest rate it liked to hit the inflation target, it was
the Chancellor who in charge of said target. So all it really did was
result in the public not blaming the Chancellor when they didn't get the
interest rate they liked ...

[Paul Corfield]

Post by Bruce
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control>
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control
Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services

There was a short discussion about this on monday's Daily Politics
featuring Maria Eagle. She was as unconvincing as ever - she really
does not appear interested in her shadow brief. Will Hutton raised
some interesting points.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01kq0fv/Daily_Politics_02_07_2012/

Starts 24 mins in and lasts about 4 mins.