Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

jouso wrote:

And that is precisely the point of the euro. It has seen a massive influx of investment on less well-off countries thanks to being in the same club.

It isolates smaller, poorer countries from short-term shocks, in turn making a more stable situation for their businesses to stay healthy while, say, the UK with their free-floating pound is worth now approx. 20% less than before Brexit. Bad prospects in, say, Poland will only affect the euro a little, in turn compensated by better news from Portugal.

The flip side of the coin is that somewhere like Greece cannot forcibly devalue their currency, or undertake a number of other actions to start trying to fix their economy. The UK, on the other hand, found it a lot easier to manipulate interest rates post-crash to help the economy recover.

Pros and cons. The Euro is a nice concept, it really is. I genuinely like it. My issue with it is that I see no way of making it truly economically feasible without union of financial policy, and I don't think the EU is ready for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Putting aside international relations for a moment

let's return to domestic politics.

Two crucial by elections today...right in the middle of a bloody big storm!

Turnout will obviously be crucial, but I'm predicting a Labour hold in Stoke and the Tories to sneak a win in Copeland, with UKIP's woes to continue.

Likely. It'll be interesting to see.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Sentinel1 wrote:


The Euro. I hate the Euro. Firstly it is aesthetically dull, boring and hideous currency in the current world! Now on to what I think matters... There was no need for a Euro in the first place, each country had their own beautiful currency that worked perfectly fine. Yes there would be more currency conversions but certain countries would have been much better off keeping their own standard rate against the dollar than down grading to the Euro, particularly after the financial crash. Any form of crash or depression will hit any nation with a shared currency much harder because they will take the brunt of failing nations such as Greece on the same rate. Speaking of weak economic countries the Euro was a major success! What better way to get a better financial rate than leech it off more successful nations with a better currency? I am very glad we didn't chose the Euro.

And that is precisely the point of the euro. It has seen a massive influx of investment on less well-off countries thanks to being in the same club.

It isolates smaller, poorer countries from short-term shocks, in turn making a more stable situation for their businesses to stay healthy while, say, the UK with their free-floating pound is worth now approx. 20% less than before Brexit. Bad prospects in, say, Poland will only affect the euro a little, in turn compensated by better news from Portugal.

Stability is a very desirable thing in economics, and usually the "not my problem" approach comes with problems of its own in the long run.

With all due respect, this comments feels as though it came straight from Juncker's office!

Considering your past comments on Mr. Juncker I'm afraid I'll have to take it as anything but respect.

If you don't want they way it sounds out of Herr Juncker (who's a massive arse, even by EU standards) or myself (I'm just a trained economist making a living off international trade) it's one thing. But solidarity is the first basic foundation of the EU and all its previous versions.

To me it feels like reductio ad Junckerum. I'm sure you can do better.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

jouso wrote:

And that is precisely the point of the euro. It has seen a massive influx of investment on less well-off countries thanks to being in the same club.

It isolates smaller, poorer countries from short-term shocks, in turn making a more stable situation for their businesses to stay healthy while, say, the UK with their free-floating pound is worth now approx. 20% less than before Brexit. Bad prospects in, say, Poland will only affect the euro a little, in turn compensated by better news from Portugal.

The flip side of the coin is that somewhere like Greece cannot forcibly devalue their currency, or undertake a number of other actions to start trying to fix their economy. The UK, on the other hand, found it a lot easier to manipulate interest rates post-crash to help the economy recover.

Pros and cons. The Euro is a nice concept, it really is. I genuinely like it. My issue with it is that I see no way of making it truly economically feasible without union of financial policy, and I don't think the EU is ready for that.

It's on the menu. A central bank with teeth and proper enforcement tools. But remember who was at the forefront of fighting things like banking union? Yes, you guessed it, the UK.

Is it standard tory policy of making sure something is in shambles (like the NHS), then claiming that it doesn't work so it's time to work something new? It llooks like it is.

 Sentinel1 wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is why it was a good idea to decide to leave.

It was a bad idea to create the EU in the first place. And the Euro.

Because...?

Europe would be better off without the EU for infinite reasons. Currently every EU state gets some of what they want, but because not everyone will agree everyone always has something they didn't get or don't want forced upon them as compromise. Without the EU each nation would again be free to do what they want which better suits their national interests on a wide range of issues etc.

Even as separate nation states, there is still compromise for trade. Just because you're independent doesn't mean you get your own way or just walk away, that's absurd. I think you'll see that an independent UK will still be "compromising" for trade with every other nation, and we will not be getting what we want and best suits our national interest every time.

 Sentinel1 wrote:

The EU has evolved so much over time to become the current bureaucratic monster when originally it was for trade. No nation can disagree with free trade but is it truly worth all the red tape that now comes with it?

Any free trade agreement comes with regulations and rules in order to establish common standards, and ensure a level playing field for the participants. This obsession with "red tape" is just a soundbite to attack something that most people don't actually understand, or in reality doesn't even affect them in day to day life. I have no idea what trade you're in, but in my work life the only intrusion is for the working time directive, and we have exemptions depending on what we're doing. I would struggle to think of any other EU mandated red tape which directly affects me, and that I have to deal with, which doesn't stray into straight banana territory.

 Sentinel1 wrote:
Originating in a post war/cold war environment it was good to have friends in one group particularly with shared borders and at the time further inclusion to keep friendship was a good idea, now several European countries are seeing a backlash against this citing 'loss of identity and sovereignty etc'. I you asked the majority of people in Europe would they want to be one Europe nation or their current country they would chose the later.

You see, now this idea of identity has always puzzled me. Is someone from Inverness less Scottish because they're also a member of the UK? How does being a member of the EU mean that an Irishman and a Spaniard are a homogeneous European? I am still Ulster-English, as well as British, and a European, and being a member of the EU never changed that status. The colour of my passport is irrelevant to me.
As to the loss of sovereignty, well, tbh, what do you feel we need complete control over? Immigration? I can agree with that to an extent, however, I'm seeing many positives from free movement in an agreed area which overwhelm the negatives as far as I am concerned. We still have control over our own economy, we always did and Parliament is still sovereign over many areas it hasn't directly agreed to cede authority to the EU over. TBH, complete sovereignty, or the ability to control ones own destiny, is frankly not something that any nation can really claim to have. No nation can act unilaterally, we're all interconnected and the only stuff we have complete control over is usually things that no one else outside of the UK actually cares about.
But again, we'll see this when we leave and still have to comply with all sorts of crazy regulations and rules.

 Sentinel1 wrote:
Further integration won't work in my opinion as it has nowhere more to go. The EU is in many ways a modern capitalist Soviet Union, it is particularly beneficial to those states that are either small or Eastern bloc because it has helped build their disastrous economies and infrastructure at the permanent expense of other nations. Why should you rob Peter to pay Paul in the first place? Particularly when you know Paul will never pay you back. Without the EU we would see a more diverse and independent Europe of countries.

Modern capitalist Soviet Union? In what ways can the EU be both a capitalist and a communist dictatorship?
It's not robbing Peter to pay Paul with no hope of recompense, because, as was stated earlier, a stable, widely enriched economy over a large geographic area makes good financial sense for all members of that area.

 Sentinel1 wrote:
...The Euro. I hate the Euro. Firstly it is aesthetically dull, boring and hideous currency in the current world! Now on to what I think matters... There was no need for a Euro in the first place, each country had their own beautiful currency that worked perfectly fine. Yes there would be more currency conversions but certain countries would have been much better off keeping their own standard rate against the dollar than down grading to the Euro, particularly after the financial crash. Any form of crash or depression will hit any nation with a shared currency much harder because they will take the brunt of failing nations such as Greece on the same rate. Speaking of weak economic countries the Euro was a major success! What better way to get a better financial rate than leech it off more successful nations with a better currency? I am very glad we didn't chose the Euro, I think if we had we would have been in a major mess after the last financial crash, not to mention the palaver of trying to leave the EU with or without your shared currency.

Well, I am no economist, and by what you've said here, I don't think you are either, but seeing as we didn't adopt the Euro, because we negotiated an opt-out, it hardly matters. See, when we were part of the EU we could still do things that didn't mean giving up our British-ness and become an un-sovereign euro-blob.

Anysay, thanks for giving your reasons, even if the person who the question was directed at can't be arsed to justify his swoop and post.

jouso wrote:


It's on the menu. A central bank with teeth and proper enforcement tools. But remember who was at the forefront of fighting things like banking union? Yes, you guessed it, the UK.

Eh. I think it's unpopular with most political parties across the EU, on account of the fact that it would result in the EU starting to exert control over their own fiscal policies when they're in power. The issue isn't that the British were blocking it, but rather that no national government wants to hand over that level of control to the EU. Because really, that's the mark of when the EU starts to become a government in its own right.

He who controls the purse strings controls everything at the end of the day.

Is it standard tory policy of making sure something is in shambles (like the NHS), then claiming that it doesn't work so it's time to work something new? It llooks like it is.

The Tories are good at it, but I think it's something they all do. If you run something into the ground and pretend you weren't responsible, it gives you justification for changing it. Look at the rail networks right now and you'll see what I mean.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I acutually came back here to briefly talk about the upcoming Northern Ireland elections. I'm hoping that the UUP and SDLP take over. With their efforts to create a proper opposition here (which doesn't officially exist in the power sharing system) they've shown that they can work together. And after everything that's happened the DUP have to go.

Are you suggesting a Norn Irish assembly run by people who aren't either corrupt, headcases, (ex?)terrorists or all three?

What are the ACTUAL chances of that?

 Graphite wrote:


Are you suggesting a Norn Irish assembly run by people who aren't either corrupt, headcases, (ex?)terrorists or all three?

What are the ACTUAL chances of that?

Slim to feth all, unfortunately.

People are too entrenched. The DUP say "you must vote for us to keep Sinn Fein out! Ignore our rampant corruption and incompetence and keep them dirty Fenians out of power!" And Sinn Fein say "get revenge on the evil British government!"

And they both appeal to a large block of voters here. The benefit scrounging sink estate low lives on both sides.

 Ketara wrote:

jouso wrote:

And that is precisely the point of the euro. It has seen a massive influx of investment on less well-off countries thanks to being in the same club.

It isolates smaller, poorer countries from short-term shocks, in turn making a more stable situation for their businesses to stay healthy while, say, the UK with their free-floating pound is worth now approx. 20% less than before Brexit. Bad prospects in, say, Poland will only affect the euro a little, in turn compensated by better news from Portugal.

The flip side of the coin is that somewhere like Greece cannot forcibly devalue their currency, or undertake a number of other actions to start trying to fix their economy. The UK, on the other hand, found it a lot easier to manipulate interest rates post-crash to help the economy recover.

Pros and cons. The Euro is a nice concept, it really is. I genuinely like it. My issue with it is that I see no way of making it truly economically feasible without union of financial policy, and I don't think the EU is ready for that.

I still think the best solution is to adopt the "federal dual-currency" model - maintain the Euro as a requirement in digital form only(ie ERM2 with some tweaks and an agreement that non-cash transactions in EU states can be done in Euros without restrictions) and then permit individual EU states to decide whether to issue physical Euros, or their own currency pegged directly to the digital Euro at an appropriate rate(you would assume one negotiated between that country's central bank and the EU), or even both. It would take away some of the advantages Germany in particular have enjoyed for their exports as a result of having what is essentially a hilariously undervalued currency relative to their economy, but it would make the Eurozone far, far more stable and allow a response to Greece-like scenarios other than "Ve must crush zem!".

In UK constitutional news, the four agriculture ministers are meeting in Edinburgh today, and Leadsome(Tory sec of state) apparently intends to indicate that there will be UK-wide control of agriculture(and, one presumes, fisheries) post-Brexit. Now, since agriculture and fisheries are already devolved, that means a Tory UK government is going to strip powers away(because like feth are the parliament going to vote to allow it) from the Scottish parliament(and the Welsh & NI assemblies to some extent). So it seems we now have a pretty clear idea of what Theresa May meant when she told her ministers the other day that "defending the Union" was a top priority - putting the uppity Celtic Fringe in our place and rolling back devolution wherever they see fit.

I'd say it was tone-deaf and cloth-eared, but honestly she can probably get away with it - despite deriving most of their income from the EU and the UK government openly using fisheries & agriculture as bargaining chips first to secure meaningless EU opt-outs and now to retain passporting for the City after Brexit, farmers and fishermen remain irrationally anti-EU and pro-Union, so their reply to this will likely be "thank you ma'am, may we have another".

Leadsom has demonstrated on multiple occasions that she's not competent to run anything more environmentally related than a fish and chip shop. She's been caught out talking utter bollocks by the Eye on more than one occasion, and falsifying her CV in the runup for Tory leadership. I get the impression she's been more or less left alone in her Department to do whatever she wants so long as she keeps instituting Hammond's cuts when requested. It may well be with May's concurrence, but it wouldn't surprise me if the others haven't a clue what she's doing and get her to rein her neck in after a bad headline or two. She wouldn't be the first Minister to try a bit of empire-building on the sly.

There are some Tory MP's who have the facts at their fingertips, and like them or hate them, they know what they're about. Leadsom is not one of them. She's a wild card in all the bad senses of the word.

and was nearly our PM....





in case you missed it :


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-4249690/Clarifications-corrections.html

whoops !


Fair to Blair his rebuttal was nigh on perfect.

 reds8n wrote:
and was nearly our PM....





in case you missed it :


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-4249690/Clarifications-corrections.html

whoops !


Fair to Blair his rebuttal was nigh on perfect.

Retractions like this should be front page items. Daily Fail indeed!

Yes, I think retractions should be much more visible.

Might make the cover of the Express actually worth reading for a change.

Can't help but think there's one or two other things maybe the Mail should've mentioned.






remind me..who was Home Sec in 2010 ....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Secretary

oh yeah :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39057772

The go-ahead has formally been given for the first phase of the HS2 high speed rail link between London and Birmingham.
After three years of debate in parliament, royal assent has been approved.
Supporters say the multi-billion pound project will boost the economy, whilst critics argue it is a waste of money and will damage the environment.

oh good ...

est. price £60 BILLION.

.... one cannot help but think that there might be some better/more pressing use that £60 BILLION could be put to perhaps ...?

 Ketara wrote:

jouso wrote:


It's on the menu. A central bank with teeth and proper enforcement tools. But remember who was at the forefront of fighting things like banking union? Yes, you guessed it, the UK.

Eh. I think it's unpopular with most political parties across the EU, on account of the fact that it would result in the EU starting to exert control over their own fiscal policies when they're in power. The issue isn't that the British were blocking it, but rather that no national government wants to hand over that level of control to the EU. Because really, that's the mark of when the EU starts to become a government in its own right.

But the banking union eventually was finalised, delayed and in a diminished form but will take powers gradually.

It took a banking crisis for that, but wars and crisis often have that effect.

60 billion. I could buy a whole forgeworld army with that.....

They need to fix all the other lines first, and cut down the bloody cost of the railway. A single to Cardiff from Swansea is over ten pounds now. The bus is only 8 for a return.

I thought privatisation was supposed to increase competition and reduce fares. What the feth is going on?

And we need HS2 like a hole in the head.

I suspect the high price tag is down to the nature of modern construction, as compared to even fifty years ago. Not only is the land value huge that you need to pay for, but there's a million and one health and safety checks, environmental concerns, and public impact/mitigation aspects to take into account.

I don't know if it's a worthwhile use of money. Haven't really looked into it. So I'll reserve judgement on the basis that I have no opinion worth hearing.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I thought privatisation was supposed to increase competition and reduce fares. What the feth is going on?

And we need HS2 like a hole in the head.

And yet, GWR and Arriva have exactly the same fees. Despite the fact that Arriva trains are 2 carriage little diesel machines, whereas the engine on a GWR is bigger than the whole bloody Arriva train.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I thought privatisation was supposed to increase competition and reduce fares. What the feth is going on?

And we need HS2 like a hole in the head.

My opposition to it is based on the argument that it benefits London more than anywhere else. Doesn't it just encourage more commuting and therefore concentrate more jobs in London and not Birmingham? And weren't there other alternatives like a West-East or Scotland - North England route that would have encourage investment in areas outside of London?

We don't need more jobs and investment in London, we need to decentralize and spread out our economy.

 welshhoppo wrote:
60 billion. I could buy a whole forgeworld army with that.....

They need to fix all the other lines first, and cut down the bloody cost of the railway. A single to Cardiff from Swansea is over ten pounds now. The bus is only 8 for a return.

Amen to this.
Given the estimation of 750million to relink Aberystwyth back to the Southern system, that money could easily be spent on re-instating this section as well as Porthmadog and Bangor and just about any other town that lost out unnecessarily courtesy of Beeching's cut. Some lines granted needed cutting, but Wales might as well be 3 different countries at the moment.

 Ketara wrote:
That's an inference right there.

I think you've stated enough times your dislike for the EU, so unless you are trolling Remainers I base my judgement on what you say. Though to be fair you have been softening on the EU lately (Though with occasional wing back to blinkered accusations) so I'm starting to think we are turning you into a Remainer!

If I'd ever said any such thing, you might be onto something. Not sure who you're arguing with really. All I said that was that the way that they're approaching the whole affair of Brexit (with a certain air of vindictiveness) is making think voting to leave probably was the right call. Because I don't like bullies.

To quote "They want to force us to agree to it before we start talking about anything else though, which is not. Because it's trying to pressure us into likely paying for far more than we would have otherwise done by making everything else contingent on us agreeing to whatever figure they care to put out."

And I asked you for evidence you have completely failed to find. You commented that one person stated it comes before talks on "trade deals" in a FT article but I have yet to find the dictionary that is apparently being used where "anything else" means "trade deals". Yet you are asserting that this is the UK being 'bullied' which it is not. The UK is 'terminating' it's contract with the EU and in all cases of termination there are costs involved by the party terminating the contract to the other party. To talk about these upfront is just sound business sense. So where is your actual evidence that the UK is being bullied? (And just in case the definition of bullying is "To force one's way aggressively or by intimidation")

Not really. Context is important. Since it seems to have passed you by, there's statements (i.e. the world is going to be taken over by meerkats, the EU is going to collapse, Brexit is going to be a disaster, etcetc) which are huge generalistic statements about the distant future. And there's other statements (e.g. I will likely have fish for dinner next week, I think the Labour Party will have future troubles due to identity issues, some negotiations taking place in the next six months will likely resolve in a certain way) which are somewhat more tangible. Occasionally the two intersect, but the more that they do, the more evidence is generally required.

Yes context and facts are important, the question is why then you are making statements that ill consider both then? You are stating that the EU are trying to bully us without any facts to back this up. You are hence making a "generalistic" statement about the EU as inevitable.

Errr....it was some of the evidence you were demanding? That they are likely trying to get us to pay more than we should? Because, you know, if they were asking for a fair amount from us, it is likely we'd have no issues in paying for it, and there'd be no need for all the "bitterness" and general ill-feeling over the wrangling he mentioned?

I mean, you're free to argue that we're the ones who'd be wrangling and getting all bitter over a fair sum, but historically speaking, the UK Government tends to pay its bills.

I'm sorry, but you are showing some real lack of experience in dealing with contract with these statements. It's not like buying a tin of biscuits where each tin costs £X. These contracts/business costs and so on will all be tied in complex contracts and only certain things apply in certain circumstances. However contracts can't cover every eventuality (for example Brexit is unlikely to considered in many of them). As such there are no actual costs that have ever been worked out for such circumstances. When a party terminates a contract earlier than it signed up to do then the party 'not at fault' for terminating the contract is generally required to determine the costs of that termination at the time (which could might be different depending on where contract is in it's life). So a contract that has one year left to run at a £20m pa would potentially be only that cost to the UK for that contract, whereas one that has 20 years to run would have a cost of £400m (and that's before you consider potential liability to contract extensions). The reason that there are differing views on what these costs are is because a lot will depend on the costs of replacing that loss (which may not necessarily be directly the same as another procurement might need to be undertaken, that could delay the works and so on). If all we were signed up to do is buy biscuits for so many years then that's easy. But it is by far more complicated than this in reality and hence the EU are taking a reasonable stance to try and flush these issues out as early as possible.

Either way, it was part of the evidence I'm using for my later inference (which is nothing more than an opinion, as I keep repeating). So...yeah. If I give you the evidence you're asking for and you demand to know what it's there for, I'm on a bit of a highway to nowhere really.

A statement by a British diplomat (an assumption because the 'bloke' wasn't defined) isn't evidence that the EU have said they are going to bully us, now is it?

You might even be right. Unlike many in this world, I'm intelligent enough to recognise the difference between my opinion and a fact.

Sigh..., then I wish you'd apply that sentiment then...

Dear Lord, throwing Trump quotes around now? Well, whatever makes you feel better

It doesn't really make me feel better at all. It's just a shame that we are in a world where people are quite happy to use them to posit an opinion....Trump is right factually right on this element though, there are a lot of people using them... [It's ironic given that he his one of the worst culprits]




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I thought privatisation was supposed to increase competition and reduce fares. What the feth is going on?

And we need HS2 like a hole in the head.

Privatisation only works when you have a vibrant competitive market. The problem with rail and bus routes is that they are generally only awarded to single companies on a significant (3+ year contracts). As such those companies that don't win anything quickly disappear leaving you with a few large powerful companies that can generally always undercut (or buy out) and smaller start up companies. At that point the cost per ticket is nothing to do with competitiveness but rather what the customer is willing to pay (and the companies then balance number of passengers against price) so factors things like car parking charges, time in the car, ease of access and so on. In this circumstance Corbyn is actually correct that making rail publicly owned again would be better for the public because the state is responsible for their running (and hence are more likely to listen to public grievances) rather the businesses which are only interesting in maximising profit. The other alternative would be to open the lines, bus routes etc to many operators all at once because then it does become a proper competitive market (in the same way as supermarkets where you can choose who you shop with)

As for HS2 it's uncertain what benefits it will bring. Both sides have arguments made on suppositions that are difficult to corroborate (the only things you can state is that will have an impact on any areas of natural beauty they put it through). I can imagine it will funnel wealth down a corridor between London, Birmingham and Manchester (you can buy homes cheaper etc) but this might come at a cost to local workers. However it's unlikely to benefit Lincolnshire or Cornwall for example.

On the other hand if they award the rail contract to Southern rail then it's more likely to cost the country overall...

 Whirlwind wrote:

I think you've stated enough times your dislike for the EU, so unless you are trolling Remainers I base my judgement on what you say. Though to be fair you have been softening on the EU lately (Though with occasional wing back to blinkered accusations) so I'm starting to think we are turning you into a Remainer!

I dislike certain aspects of the EU. I like others. I'm not really a Brexiter or a Remainer. I'm just me. I'm left wing in some regards, right wing in others. Never really understood the desire people have to put everyone into conveniently labelled boxes.

And I asked you for evidence you have completely failed to find. You commented that one person stated it comes before talks on "trade deals" in a FT article but I have yet to find the dictionary that is apparently being used where "anything else" means "trade deals".

...mate, you literally threw a massive wodge of accusations about things I wasn't saying at me. To reiterate your own quote again:-

whirlwind wrote:You are making the inference that they are out to give us a bad deal and that is why we should be getting out the EU.o where is the evidence they are giving us a bad deal (they have said they wanted to talk finances first, which is reasonable). Where is the evidence we have previously had a bad deal from the EU in a manner that was deliberately trying to hold back the UK? Where is the evidence that getting out of the EU will mean we get a better deal from the EU? You are taking soundbites rather than real evidence and insisting the EU has it in for us.

I never said that getting out of the EU would mean we got a better 'deal', or any of this crap you threw out before. Whether I've provided evidence or not is really irrelevant, because you demonstrate exceedingly clearly that you're not actually reading what I'm saying anyway.

I mean, you did it again when you started talking about us specifically discussing Juncker's article, when I never linked it, never commented on it, and couldn't care less about it! I mean, why would you think I was talking about that?!

In that kind of circumstance, what kind of proof can I offer? Or indeed, should I? You've very, very, very clearly demonstrated that you're not actually reading what I'm saying, but reacting to some kind of conversation going on in your own head. And in that sort of circumstance, there's no proof I can ever offer you'd ever accept, because you're just railing against me generally. I've been in enough debates on the internet to know when the other person has battened down their mental hatches. So why bother?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I thought privatisation was supposed to increase competition and reduce fares. What the feth is going on?

And we need HS2 like a hole in the head.

My opposition to it is based on the argument that it benefits London more than anywhere else. Doesn't it just encourage more commuting and therefore concentrate more jobs in London and not Birmingham? And weren't there other alternatives like a West-East or Scotland - North England route that would have encourage investment in areas outside of London?

We don't need more jobs and investment in London, we need to decentralize and spread out our economy.

I agree with this.

Secondly, the £60 billion would produce a great deal more overall national benefit by spending it on lots of smaller regional improvement schemes rather than one giant prestige project.
Thirdly, you can get to Birmingham by train in under 2 hours already. Reducing that to 90 minutes isn't worth £60 billion.
Fourthly, demand for business rail travel is dropping off as high speed digital comms make teleworking more effective.

However I am afraid we are going to get HS2 and it probably will prove as useful and effective as the M6 toll motorway.

Labour hold Stoke, Tories gain Copeland.

Could this be the beginning of the long overdue crumbling of UKIP?

Could be the end of Corbyn. Two safe seats and you get a loss and a close win. If these were supposed to be suggestive of dissatisfaction with the Tories or Brexit, it doesn't look great.

Both seats are in areas of high support for Leave at the referendum.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Could be the end of Corbyn. Two safe seats and you get a loss and a close win. If these were supposed to be suggestive of dissatisfaction with the Tories or Brexit, it doesn't look great.

Except Corbyn isn't standing in the way of Brexit. At all.

But that the Tories somehow painted themselves as the 'party of the working person' speaks volumes of the power held by our media, and why it could do with some curtailing.

 welshhoppo wrote:
60 billion. I could buy a whole forgeworld army with that.....

They need to fix all the other lines first, and cut down the bloody cost of the railway. A single to Cardiff from Swansea is over ten pounds now. The bus is only 8 for a return.

And presumably a fraction of that in fuel if you drove.

Where I am, outside Edinburgh, it was cheaper for me to drive my 20mpg petrol car in and back (i get free parking, admittedly) than a peak time day return. Once you apply all the discounts for annual season tickets, it's still marginally cheaper for me to drive a small diesel in and back than getting the train. If there's more than just me travelling it's a no-brainer; driving is so much cheaper.


I'm all for HS2, in the long run at least, as I'm assuming eventually they'll add an HS3 North of Birmingham and eventually up to Glasgow. High speed Glasgow/Brum/London would be brilliant for all sorts of day tripping and business.

Trains? Don't talk to me about Trains.

I live in Saaaarf East Engerlund (as the locals pronounce it. Or at least those who believe affecting a Bow Bells accent makes them sound hard, and not simply ridiculous).

But, I work in London. Prior to that, I worked in my home town.

In taking up my current job, I doubled my wage - and now earn more than triple four and half years later. Which is nice. Lucrative too as I'm sure you can imagine.

But, had it not been for my parents, thanks to South Eastern being the sole operator of the Hastings-London line, and charging ludicrous prices, I simply couldn't have taken up this current job.

Why?

By the time I'd paid my rent, council tax, water, lekky and food bills? Yeah, I was left with roughly £200 a month to myself. From a full time job.

First month's season ticket to get me from home to Nodnol for work? £432. Not a typo.

Thankfully, Mum and Dad stepped in and gifted me that first month - and I'm now doing very well for myself (have ditched Train, now get a coach. Half the price, far more reliable, guaranteed a seat, better than a train's first class....also more door-to-door!)

But what if someone didn't have the parental luxury I continue to enjoy? How are they meant to break out of minimum wage or there-about jobs, and expand their own horizons? Because Trains companies seemingly run on a 'think of a number' pricing policy, they're stuffed, and worse - stuck in provincial towns.

It's ridiculous.

Trains are far too expensive in the UK, and the government's approach seems to be to shrug their shoulders, and hand the Transport Department over to people obsessed with 'Breaking the Unions', like a bad 80's rerun. Anyone who lives in Kent has my sympathy right now.

And Corbyn is done for, I think. Even the Guardian has decided to stop backing him. Now that there's no obvious anti-Blairite call to arms to rebel against, the popular end of things is shedding interest in favour of things like anti-Trump marches. He's not flavour of the month anymore.

UKIP is done. Brexit has removed their reason to exist, and their donors have accordingly removed their wallets. Just as I predicted a year or so back. Nuttall had one chance to try and transform his party, and got proven a liar over a highly emotive subject, completely discrediting him. UKIP is done. I won't miss it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Labour hold Stoke, Tories gain Copeland.

Could this be the beginning of the long overdue crumbling of UKIP?

Yes it may well be the end of UKIP, as with every eventual step with Brexit they will lose less of a reason to be there. They will probably cease to exist by the end of the year we are officially 'out'. None the less there may be some die-hards that try to rebrand or rename the party for a continued existence. Now back to the two results, I was surprised a little that Labour held Stoke (admittedly I know nothing of Stoke) but with the way Labour is going at the moment I thought support would have waned enough to lose both elections. Interestingly UKIP beat the Tories at Stoke and were only about 2600 votes bellow Labour when most people thought UKIP would be at the bottom. Going to Copeland that was a big blow for Labour and great success for the Conservatives who can now boast the first by-election victory by a government since '82. No doubt this will swell May's advisors to push on with Brexit with little appeasement for Labour views.

UKIP is done, but is the spirit of UKIP?

I think we probably all understand that although UKIP's base platform was anti-EU, their sub-platform and the spirit of a lot of their supporters was anti-immigration.

The official immigration target is still 100,000 a year. With 41,000 foreign students alone wanting to come to the UK, and it becoming harder for Brits to emigrate, the government of the day will be hard pushed to stick to this.

IMO also a lot of UKIP's support came from people with a vague generalised sense of grievance at the modern world. I don't think much is going to happen in a hurry to make that go away.