|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Sept 28, 2019 20:40:02 GMT
Burnley local politics are not to be taken as a template for anywhere else!
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 28, 2019 21:26:08 GMT
i was only confused by the taxi driver comment. I did not mean owt by it There are lots of places where the taxi services are mainly or significantly provided by owners drivers from the local Asian community. There are some where they supply vehicles and drivers for a particular candidate/party at an election. Are there election expense issues there? |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 28, 2019 21:29:54 GMT
Perhaps after the Euro elections Labour should be thinking how to appeal to working class voters as well? You did seem to very much focus on the middle class vote in 2017... Abolition of tuition fees and renationalisation of the rail system were our most prominent policies. They help everybody regardless of class,as would a 2nd referendum(which gives people a chance to abolish Brexit  ). Well ... Is there not evidence that the middle classes would benefit more than the working classes from abolition of tuition fees? And given that rail use rises with income if renationalisation is beneficial then again wouldn't that have the same effect? |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Sept 29, 2019 8:56:45 GMT
There are lots of places where the taxi services are mainly or significantly provided by owners drivers from the local Asian community. There are some where they supply vehicles and drivers for a particular candidate/party at an election. Are there election expense issues there? Not if they're volunteering their time and using their own vehicle without payment. |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,672 
|
Post by pl on Sept 29, 2019 9:15:44 GMT
i was only confused by the taxi driver comment. I did not mean owt by it There are lots of places where the taxi services are mainly or significantly provided by owners drivers from the local Asian community. There are some where they supply vehicles and drivers for a particular candidate/party at an election. My understanding was that it was illegal for candidates to supply paid for taxis to ferry voters to the polling station. Private cars driven by volunteers is another matter. However, if the volunteer taxi driver expected any future reward for taking a voter to the polling station that might get interesting. I'm on my phone at the moment so can't find the exact statutory reference for this. David/Tony may know off the top of their heads! |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 29, 2019 19:46:29 GMT
Abolition of tuition fees and renationalisation of the rail system were our most prominent policies. They help everybody regardless of class,as would a 2nd referendum(which gives people a chance to abolish Brexit ). Well ... Is there not evidence that the middle classes would benefit more than the working classes from abolition of tuition fees? And given that rail use rises with income if renationalisation is beneficial then again wouldn't that have the same effect? No,because with lower fares, more working class people could afford to commute on the train,which brings in more money for investment into the railways. |
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Sept 29, 2019 19:50:24 GMT
Well ... Is there not evidence that the middle classes would benefit more than the working classes from abolition of tuition fees? And given that rail use rises with income if renationalisation is beneficial then again wouldn't that have the same effect? No,because with lower fares, more working class people could afford to commute on the train,which brings in more money for investment into the railways. The most important fares are already fixed by the Government. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Sept 29, 2019 20:04:15 GMT
Well ... Is there not evidence that the middle classes would benefit more than the working classes from abolition of tuition fees? And given that rail use rises with income if renationalisation is beneficial then again wouldn't that have the same effect? No,because with lower fares, more working class people could afford to commute on the train,which brings in more money for investment into the railways. On the other hand, the profit motive has led to investment in some cases. In areas where rail has a virtual monopoly, there's a problem, but take London to Oxford and Birmingham. Because these journeys are very competitive, Chiltern Railways have invested heavily and have really high quality rolling stock with good customer service. They have had the advantage of a much longer franchise than most, but there's a reason I'll almost always use them if travelling to London by train. In fact, all of the top five operators for customer satisfaction (for the latest data I can find) face significant competition for most of their routes - Heathrow Express, Chiltern, Hull Trains, Grand Central, and Virgin Trains. The areas with the worst fares and lowest satisfactions are areas where one company is particularly dominant, or CrossCountry where they have very little competition due to being the only rail company for many possible journeys. I don't think renationalising would improve those areas, which already have a monopoly. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 29, 2019 20:05:55 GMT
No,because with lower fares, more working class people could afford to commute on the train,which brings in more money for investment into the railways. On the other hand, the profit motive has led to investment in some cases. In areas where rail has a virtual monopoly, there's a problem, but take London to Oxford and Birmingham. Because these journeys are very competitive, Chiltern Railways have invested heavily and have really high quality rolling stock with good customer service. They have had the advantage of a much longer franchise than most, but there's a reason I'll almost always use them if travelling to London by train. In fact, all of the top five operators for customer satisfaction (for the latest data I can find) face significant competition for most of their routes - Heathrow Express, Chiltern, Hull Trains, Grand Central, and Virgin Trains. The areas with the worst fares and lowest satisfactions are areas where one company is particularly dominant, or CrossCountry where they have very little competition due to being the only rail company for many possible journeys. I don't think renationalising would improve those areas, which already have a monopoly. Merseytravel doesn't fit that model? |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Sept 29, 2019 20:11:38 GMT
On the other hand, the profit motive has led to investment in some cases. In areas where rail has a virtual monopoly, there's a problem, but take London to Oxford and Birmingham. Because these journeys are very competitive, Chiltern Railways have invested heavily and have really high quality rolling stock with good customer service. They have had the advantage of a much longer franchise than most, but there's a reason I'll almost always use them if travelling to London by train. In fact, all of the top five operators for customer satisfaction (for the latest data I can find) face significant competition for most of their routes - Heathrow Express, Chiltern, Hull Trains, Grand Central, and Virgin Trains. The areas with the worst fares and lowest satisfactions are areas where one company is particularly dominant, or CrossCountry where they have very little competition due to being the only rail company for many possible journeys. I don't think renationalising would improve those areas, which already have a monopoly. Merseytravel doesn't fit that model? Ah, now I'm looking it seems they passed Grand Central last year. However, the fact they serve a fairly small and self-contained network in a big urban area may give them an advantage (delays are less common due to a knock on effect, and they run direct into the city centre and loop around). Though C2C also have these advantages and aren't as well liked. Still, one or two exceptions doesn't affect the trend - areas with more competition have generally done well out of rail privatisation, as anyone living in Northern's heartland or on the Thameslink/Southern route (the two being the same company) could tell you. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 29, 2019 20:40:58 GMT
Well ... Is there not evidence that the middle classes would benefit more than the working classes from abolition of tuition fees? And given that rail use rises with income if renationalisation is beneficial then again wouldn't that have the same effect? No,because with lower fares, more working class people could afford to commute on the train,which brings in more money for investment into the railways. How would nationalisation reduce fares to a sufficient degree to allow "more working class people ... to commute" ? Or at all ... |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Sept 29, 2019 20:49:24 GMT
No,because with lower fares, more working class people could afford to commute on the train,which brings in more money for investment into the railways. How would nationalisation reduce fares to a sufficient degree to allow "more working class people ... to commute" ? Or at all ... I seem to remember fares going up every year under BR by more than the rate of inflation. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 29, 2019 21:09:15 GMT
How would nationalisation reduce fares to a sufficient degree to allow "more working class people ... to commute" ? Or at all ... I seem to remember fares going up every year under BR by more than the rate of inflation. To develop the theme. The Labour argument seems to be that the private companies are taking money out of the system. Which they are. Well, some of them. But others are actually losing money, which means they are - effectively - putting money into the system. But let's assume they are taking, say, 3% out of the system. Labour seems to want that money to be used to reduce fares and to improve services. Which would be good. But it can only be spent once. So let's assume it's used to reduce fares. 3% is a typical annual fare rise, so it would allow the fares increase to be suspended for a single year. Would anybody really even notice such a change - your season ticket is £328.40 rather than £338.25 ? But it's not that simple. Currently pay rates vary between train operators. Nationalise it and the unions will insist on parity. And it won't be on the basis of the average! (Incidentally, didn't the recent Conference make a commitment to sectoral collective bargaining?) So there's a big chunk, if not all, of the 3% blown. [Incidentally I support renationalisation, but for operational reasons not because it will magically make trains cheaper, longer, cleaner or more punctual. 'Cos it won't.] |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 29, 2019 21:10:52 GMT
How would nationalisation reduce fares to a sufficient degree to allow "more working class people ... to commute" ? Or at all ... I seem to remember fares going up every year under BR by more than the rate of inflation. You misremember. When I worked for British Rail my (non-railway) friends enthused to me about how cheap the fares were, how the trains were always punctual and how they never had to stand. (I wish.) |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 30, 2019 16:45:49 GMT
No,because with lower fares, more working class people could afford to commute on the train,which brings in more money for investment into the railways. On the other hand, the profit motive has led to investment in some cases. In areas where rail has a virtual monopoly, there's a problem, but take London to Oxford and Birmingham. Because these journeys are very competitive, Chiltern Railways have invested heavily and have really high quality rolling stock with good customer service. They have had the advantage of a much longer franchise than most, but there's a reason I'll almost always use them if travelling to London by train. In fact, all of the top five operators for customer satisfaction (for the latest data I can find) face significant competition for most of their routes - Heathrow Express, Chiltern, Hull Trains, Grand Central, and Virgin Trains. The areas with the worst fares and lowest satisfactions are areas where one company is particularly dominant, or CrossCountry where they have very little competition due to being the only rail company for many possible journeys. I don't think renationalising would improve those areas, which already have a monopoly. I generally agree with your assessment. Chiltern's trains are fast,frequent and usually quite cheap,especially their local trains. I did High Wycombe to Aylesbury,which is roughly 15 miles for only £5.00,which seems very cheap to other operators. The reason Chiltern has done is that I think they were forced to compete. My point is nationalisation would allow the government to access latent demand for train services by nationalising franchises one by one, establishing a national stock manufacturer with a consistent stock investment plan. That would enable the government-owned franchise to gradually increase capacity and they could make a long-term investment plan in electrification and trackwork (instead of the current silly 5 year Network Rail investment plan) that means modal shift would occur and masses more people would be attracted to the railways by cheap fares, modern fleets,fast services and a better chance of a seat coupled with a wider transport strategy including an integrated feeder bus network, reasonable central government rolling investment in cycle lanes/highways and SOV(Single Occupancy Vehicle) tolls on motorways and trunk roads (the tolls would pay for the transport investment.) My idea for the network would be a basic frequency of 1tph on all lines for each franchise plus a number of services added per hour based on popularity. I would anticipate most existing timetables would not change based on the new formula but regional lines that currently receive a poor services would receive a decent service,paid for by profits on the more popular lines. A lot of the ideas have been tried and tested by DB,which is very successful. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 30, 2019 16:49:18 GMT
No,because with lower fares, more working class people could afford to commute on the train,which brings in more money for investment into the railways. The most important fares are already fixed by the Government. And they are too high in comparison with their competitor modes of transport e.g buses. |
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Sept 30, 2019 17:03:19 GMT
The most important fares are already fixed by the Government. And they are too high in comparison with their competitor modes of transport e.g buses. If operation of trains were not franchised out, it is the same body setting the fares. Nationalisation is utterly irrelevant. The size of fare increases has arisen from a policy decision to transfer more of the cost of rail from the taxpayer to the user. |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,672
|
Post by pl on Sept 30, 2019 17:20:36 GMT
And they are too high in comparison with their competitor modes of transport e.g buses. If operation of trains were not franchised out, it is the same body setting the fares. Nationalisation is utterly irrelevant. The size of fare increases has arisen from a policy decision to transfer more of the cost of rail from the taxpayer to the user. Indeed, the question Labour needs to answer is whether it is willing to raise taxes (including on the poorest in society) to subsidise rail fares for all commuters, including millionaires. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 30, 2019 17:28:36 GMT
On the other hand, the profit motive has led to investment in some cases. In areas where rail has a virtual monopoly, there's a problem, but take London to Oxford and Birmingham. Because these journeys are very competitive, Chiltern Railways have invested heavily and have really high quality rolling stock with good customer service. They have had the advantage of a much longer franchise than most, but there's a reason I'll almost always use them if travelling to London by train. In fact, all of the top five operators for customer satisfaction (for the latest data I can find) face significant competition for most of their routes - Heathrow Express, Chiltern, Hull Trains, Grand Central, and Virgin Trains. The areas with the worst fares and lowest satisfactions are areas where one company is particularly dominant, or CrossCountry where they have very little competition due to being the only rail company for many possible journeys. I don't think renationalising would improve those areas, which already have a monopoly. I generally agree with your assessment. Chiltern's trains are fast,frequent and usually quite cheap,especially their local trains. I did High Wycombe to Aylesbury,which is roughly 15 miles for only £5.00,which seems very cheap to other operators. The reason Chiltern has done is that I think they were forced to compete. My point is nationalisation would allow the government to access latent demand for train services by nationalising franchises one by one, establishing a national stock manufacturer with a consistent stock investment plan. That would enable the government-owned franchise to gradually increase capacity and they could make a long-term investment plan in electrification and trackwork (instead of the current silly 5 year Network Rail investment plan) that means modal shift would occur and masses more people would be attracted to the railways by cheap fares, modern fleets,fast services and a better chance of a seat coupled with a wider transport strategy including an integrated feeder bus network, reasonable central government rolling investment in cycle lanes/highways and SOV(Single Occupancy Vehicle) tolls on motorways and trunk roads (the tolls would pay for the transport investment.) My idea for the network would be a basic frequency of 1tph on all lines for each franchise plus a number of services added per hour based on popularity. I would anticipate most existing timetables would not change based on the new formula but regional lines that currently receive a poor services would receive a decent service,paid for by profits on the more popular lines. A lot of the ideas have been tried and tested by DB,which is very successful. Which other rail operator competes with Chiltern between High Wycombe and Aylesbury? |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 30, 2019 17:31:28 GMT
I generally agree with your assessment. Chiltern's trains are fast,frequent and usually quite cheap,especially their local trains. I did High Wycombe to Aylesbury,which is roughly 15 miles for only £5.00,which seems very cheap to other operators. The reason Chiltern has done is that I think they were forced to compete. My point is nationalisation would allow the government to access latent demand for train services by nationalising franchises one by one, establishing a national stock manufacturer with a consistent stock investment plan. That would enable the government-owned franchise to gradually increase capacity and they could make a long-term investment plan in electrification and trackwork (instead of the current silly 5 year Network Rail investment plan) that means modal shift would occur and masses more people would be attracted to the railways by cheap fares, modern fleets,fast services and a better chance of a seat coupled with a wider transport strategy including an integrated feeder bus network, reasonable central government rolling investment in cycle lanes/highways and SOV(Single Occupancy Vehicle) tolls on motorways and trunk roads (the tolls would pay for the transport investment.) My idea for the network would be a basic frequency of 1tph on all lines for each franchise plus a number of services added per hour based on popularity. I would anticipate most existing timetables would not change based on the new formula but regional lines that currently receive a poor services would receive a decent service,paid for by profits on the more popular lines. A lot of the ideas have been tried and tested by DB,which is very successful. Would this be by nationalising an existing supplier or by establishing a new entity? Would it have a monopoly of supply? |
|
).
