Election 2019 - promises

[CdBrux]

It's a sign of how completely unbalanced economic debate has become when Labour's policies of a top income tax rate of 50% on earnings above £125,000 and reverting corporation taxes to similar levels as other developed countries are being described as 'quasi-communist', when they are both less than they were for most of Thatcher's time in office.

And this will really be enough to cover their spending spree?

 

[CdBrux]

I personally think 50% is far too low. The top rate should be up to something like 75%. In fact I would argue a 100% tax rate over a certain amount would be significantly better for society as a whole. Yes you work for nothing over a certain amount - so what? - Either: people are so passionate about their method of earning a living that once they get over the magic threshold they are willing to do it for free as a hobby; Or they are only in it for the money, in which case after they have earnt the magic number they can step aside and give someone else a chance. What is absolutly dispicable is those at the lower end of society who are struggling to get by being expected to treat their job like a hobby and hang around unpaid at the beck and call of a boss where they might be able to scrape minimum wage at the drop of a hat. I gross about 30K and would be happy to have a 60% - 70% tax rate on anything more I earnt, if it means the lady around the corner and all else like her could feed their children and buy them a new pair of shoes.

What a lot of class warfare hatred. What's wrong with a little more love and hope? What would happen if the owners, management etc.. of your employer did decide to not work more as they got no further reward and as a result the company became less successful and had to unfortunately make you redundant? So overall take take probably doesn't increase any more, is maybe less, but the state has more need to spend money. How doess that work? You may not like it, it may not be your personal motivation, but it is the motivation for many and you cannot ignore it. Vilifying them for it (i.e. your better off than me so I want some of that without having to do anything for it) is hardly going to persuade them to change their way of thinking.

 

[notlob.divad]

What a lot of class warfare hatred. What's wrong with a little more love and hope? What would happen if the owners, management etc.. of your employer did decide to not work more as they got no further reward and as a result the company became less successful and had to unfortunately make you redundant?

My employer just has decided he doesn't want to work as much. The CEO now just works a 3 day week he felt he had enough money and wanted less stress. As a result he took on an extra office secretary, some extra new graduates, gave the existing hierachy of employees a promotion, is in the process of consulting on a profit share scheme, and just this week took us all out for the companies first every Christmas Dinner. As a result the company is going from stength to strength because my employer is ethical, and understand the benefits of sharing the companies wealth, and his employees are happy so are working harder.

As for the rest of your rant. I want nothing of theirs, nothing at all, as I have repeatedly said, I want to pay in more as I currently don't think I pay in enough. 'Class' doesn't come into it at all it is about the centralisation of the countries wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the many.

 

[notlob.divad]

Do you really think someone is going to work an extra shift or longer hours if they're not going to end up being paid for it??

Look at the current fiasco with doctors and dentists who are actively cutting down their hours to get their income under £100k to avoid the 62% marginal tax rate, going down from 5 to 4 working days and refusing to work additional shifts.

How do you propose forcing people to work more but not get paid for it? I thought slavery was abolished?

I don't expect them to work longer hours for nothing. I expect them to stop working and open up a vacancy for someone else. The issue with doctors and dentists is stupid, but could be solved by recruiting and training more of them then individually they have fewer hours to work, fewer patients to see, less stressed and are generally happier.

Slavery has not been abolished, it is live and kicking in the UK. As I said, it is not me focing people to work for nothing, I am only trying to incentivise them to stop working when they have attained enough and allow someone else to take up the mantle. Rather then letting their greed get the better of them whilst people are dieing on the streets and children are sent to school hungry.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Inside the EU, the UK is free to choose it's own VED rate and any other road use charges it desires.

If you want to apply road charging for HGVs for drivers from outside your country then you have to apply it to those in your own country as well. The UK chooses to extract a contribution to general taxation from road users through an annual taxation on vehicle emmissions applied at the point of registration. This is because changing this method for a better (fairer) system would lose them votes.

FTFY.

 

[Envy123]

I think reducing long-distance commuting to London isn't likely to happen, and it will likely increase further. On the other hand, reducing fares will likely encourage further overcrowding and will reduce investment, which will be much needed as long as the economy is London-centric. I've seen the proposals for London 2050 over at Reconnections and these actions don't come cheap.

 

[squizzler]

I'm surprised that none of the parties have promised to bail out Eddie Stobart in their transport policies. Restoring a great British icon - one for UKIP perhaps?

 

[yorkie]

This is another reminder that this is not a General Discussion thread. This thread is to discuss railway matters.

If anyone wishes to discuss non railway matters please use the General Discussion section.

Thank you.

 

[squizzler]

This thread is to discuss railway matters.

Stobart do (or certainly did) railway stuff.

 

[Goldfish62]

Stobart do (or certainly did) railway stuff.

Still do, I believe.

 

[Oxfordblues]

I'm surprised that none of the parties have promised to bail out Eddie Stobart in their transport policies. Restoring a great British icon - one for UKIP perhaps?

Eddie Stobart became successful by the simple expedient of finding out how much other hauliers were charging, offering a lower price, then trimming his costs by whatever it took to make a profit.
If we are to believe Labour's manifesto (and that's all we've got to go on) they plan to renationalise the railways, presumably including rail freight. This will mean the end for GBRf, Colas Rail, DRS, Freightliner and DB Cargo to be replaced by a monolithic British Rail. Expect the new BR to be ruthlessly undercut by unfettered private-enterprise road hauliers who pay no road tolls, with vast swathes of traffic being lost to rail.
Even more astounding is their promise to "end driver-only operation". Will this mean the return of the "second-man" on freight trains, who's only role was as a second pair of eyes for the driver but in reality served only as a distraction? Or maybe they mean the guard. Will they build a huge fleet of new. freight brakevans or will the guard sit in the rear cab of the loco with virtually nothing to do?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm surprised that none of the parties have promised to bail out Eddie Stobart in their transport policies. Restoring a great British icon - one for UKIP perhaps?

This is another reminder that this is not a General Discussion thread. This thread is to discuss railway matters.
If anyone wishes to discuss non railway matters please use the General Discussion section.
Thank you.

Actually, Eddie Stobart Group has quite a presence in rail, operating several rail-based terminals and generating significant intermodal rail traffic.
If the firm goes under, there will be an impact on rail - eg at the Widnes container depot and its other port activities.

However, though it might be an icon, it will have to obey the rules of the market.
Internal management squabbles over company plans have nothing to so with national transport policies.
There are legions of other operators who would step in (though they may not be as friendly to rail as Stobart has been).

PS Radio 4 News has just said the Dbay rescue package has been accepted, so the crisis is over for now.

 

[Goldfish62]

Eddie Stobart became successful by the simple expedient of finding out how much other hauliers were charging, offering a lower price, then trimming his costs by whatever it took to make a profit.
If we are to believe Labour's manifesto (and that's all we've got to go on) they plan to renationalise the railways, presumably including rail freight. This will mean the end for GBRf, Colas Rail, DRS, Freightliner and DB Cargo to be replaced by a monolithic British Rail. Expect the new BR to be ruthlessly undercut by unfettered private-enterprise road hauliers who pay no road tolls, with vast swathes of traffic being lost to rail.
Even more astounding is their promise to "end driver-only operation". Will this mean the return of the "second-man" on freight trains, who's only role was as a second pair of eyes for the driver but in reality served only as a distraction? Or maybe they mean the guard. Will they build a huge fleet of new. freight brakevans or will the guard sit in the rear cab of the loco with virtually nothing to do?

Andy McDonald was rather non-committal recently, saying that initially at least DRS (which is already state-owned) would be expanded to compete with the private operators.

On ending DOO I assume this is just for passengers services as a political sop to the RMT NEC, which fell out with Labour long ago because it wasn't extreme enough. It'll never be fulfilled because the guard positions simply won't be able to be filled. The railways have enough problems recruiting to deal with current turnover, as I understand it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

DRS may be state-owned (by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority), but it is not within the remit of the DfT.
It's just another commercial TOC among all the others, regulated by ORR.
Labour has not (yet) said it will abolish private freight or open access, or disallow new entrants, so it will have to keep the ORR for market regulation.
That means not giving DRS any preference over GBRf, Freightliner, DBC and the rest.
I think their plans only concern the passenger railway, and even then they haven't thought through things like Heathrow Express and Eurostar.

 

[Goldfish62]

DRS may be state-owned (by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority), but it is not within the remit of the DfT.
It's just another commercial TOC among all the others, regulated by ORR.
Labour has not (yet) said it will abolish private freight or open access, or disallow new entrants, so it will have to keep the ORR for market regulation.
That means not giving DRS any preference over GBRf, Freightliner, DBC and the rest.
I think their plans only concern the passenger railway, and even then they haven't thought through things like Heathrow Express and Eurostar.

I was only quoting what he said in his interview in RAIL. Valid point re DRS, though.

Re Eurostar, the only scope they would have is to buy back the 40% stake that was sold. Knowing the ruthlessness of Heathrow I think they'd rather close down HEX than see it taken away.

And what of the open access operators?

Labour would have been better just concentrating the English TOCs. Taking the responsibility for train operators away from the Scottish and Welsh governments, plus TfL does not exactly fit in with the devolution agenda.

 

[jfollows]

Further comment from Private Eye, Election Special No. 1511: I don't think its stance that franchising is an expensive mess will surprise many.

SIGNAL FAILURES

A painful split


SCRUTINY of the cost of Labour’s rail pledges eclipsed new statistics showing the current railway’s eye-watering cost last month.


In the 1990s, the Tories decided British Rail was “deeply inefficient” and broke it up. Efficiency worsened; but the Labour government waited until February 2010 to order a “value for money study”, which eventually found the fragmented rail system’s costs “would need to reduce by some 40 percent to match those in the comparator countries” abroad. Newly installed Tory ministers ignored the evidence and stuck with franchising.


The latest statistics reveal that in 2018-19, under inept transport secretary Chris Grayling, franchisees pocketed a net subsidy for the first time since 2009-10, despite the intervening annual fare rises above CPI (the consumer price index being the official inflation measure). Train-operating firms netted £1.2bn more than in 2017-18, including 6 percent (£572m) higher “passenger revenue”.


Previously they made net payments to help fund government-owned Network Rail, which has a whopping £54bn debt (£24bn in 2010). Now taxpayers subsidise franchisees and give NR about £4bn a year, yet passengers face another above-inflation fare rise next month.


Whatever the pros and cons of Labour’s plans, at least they acknowledge the ludicrous outcome of fragmentation. The Tories apparently want indefinite cost rises. Last Sunday’s launch of yet another franchise, this time on the west-coast mainline, illustrated their resistance to change. Their only answer to rising costs is to block upgrade schemes (Eyes passim) that would improve efficiency. The upgrades will cost more when their necessity is eventually accepted, as Britain will have lost skills and experience in the hiatus.


THE Commons transport committee asked transport secretary Grant Shapps in October to name one thing he’d like to start while in office. “Getting the trains to run on time, which is something I have started,” he replied.


So how’s that going? Statistics for 13 October to 9 November show 59 percent of trains were on time — even worse than the underwhelming 12-month average of 65 percent. Delays of more than 30 minutes were about 67 percent above the 12-month average, and train cancellations about 34 percent above.


INFLICTING Pacer trains on passengers after the 31 December deadline (Eye 1509) is yet another railway cock-up, but last week managers spun the retirement of the first three Pacers as a story of “transforming” customer service.


Pacers, based on a 1960s bus design, were a stopgap when the Tories slashed rail funding in the 1980s. They passed their scrap-by date more than a decade ago, but the Noughties Labour government insisted northerners and the Welsh didn’t deserve better trains.


Thus Angel Trains, which bought the Pacers for a song in the 1990s, cashed in by leasing the depreciated old assets to franchisees for another decade and counting. Unabashed, it said last week Pacers had “served the North well” (shurely “served our shareholders well”’? — Ed) but were now being replaced “as they reach the end of their lifespan”.


Dr B Ching

 

[WatcherZero]

The article totally misses the point, that the main inefficiency is labour costs. Staff salaries which make up 25% of operating costs have been rising an average of 5.5% since privatisation while fares have only been rising an average of 3.5%.

If you take just the last five years (Pg 19):
https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pd...il-industry-financial-information-2017-18.pdf

Then per operating km: staff costs have risen 5%, rolling stock costs have risen 7% (new rolling stock binge), other operating costs have fallen by 15.8% while franchise premiums paid to government have risen by 18.8%!

Dividends have risen by 6.5% over five years in absolute terms but per operating km its been a 1.5% fall.

 

[Mikey C]

The article totally misses the point, that the main inefficiency is labour costs. Staff salaries which make up 25% of operating costs have been rising an average of 5.5% since privatisation while fares have only been rising an average of 3.5%.

If you take just the last five years (Pg 19):
https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pd...il-industry-financial-information-2017-18.pdf

Then per operating km: staff costs have risen 5%, rolling stock costs have risen 7% (new rolling stock binge), other operating costs have fallen by 15.8% while franchise premiums paid to government have risen by 18.8%!

Dividends have risen by 6.5% over five years in absolute terms but per operating km its been a 1.5% fall.

Is that due to more staff numbers or rail workers getting big payrises under private ownership of the railways?

 

[WatcherZero]

Predominantly rises, there are some more staff where number of services operated have increased but likewise a lot of previously inhouse jobs like cleaning have been outsourced.

 

[Jozhua]

I have a feeling we're in for more of the same, modest band-aid projects and continued low levels of subsidy.

I doubt we'll see much in the way of electrification, bi modes will probably be the way for the next while.

Probably won't be an interesting few years for rail, especially on the National Rail network.

 

[squizzler]

On the other hand, if there is a tory majority and the need to worry about not offending any marginal falls away, there is no need to film-flam about with HS2 review theatre anymore.

 

[Yindee8191]

On the other hand, if there is a tory majority and the need to worry about not offending any marginal falls away, there is no need to film-flam about with HS2 review theatre anymore.

I suspect HS2 is more or less safe now. Boris has never actually wanted to scrap it, and now he’s got a comfortable majority he doesn’t need to worry about trying to get votes by getting rid of it.

 

[The Ham]

I suspect HS2 is more or less safe now. Boris has never actually wanted to scrap it, and now he’s got a comfortable majority he doesn’t need to worry about trying to get votes by getting rid of it.

Indeed, even with the leaking of the outcome of the review and that the decision on what's happening with HS2 was started in the Tory Manifesto to be up to the outcome of the review there's a sea of blue along most of the route. There's (as yet) no MP's who's party said that they would be against it near to the route.

 

[dk1]

I suspect HS2 is more or less safe now. Boris has never actually wanted to scrap it, and now he’s got a comfortable majority he doesn’t need to worry about trying to get votes by getting rid it.

Let's hope so & just get on with it.

 

[squizzler]

I suspect the same for findings of the Williams review and fares reform. Although I think the election result is terrible for non-railway land, I grudgingly admit Boris is well placed to make some bold 'industry structure' decisions that put the railway in good stead for the next couple of decades. Silver linings and all that.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Well, the nationalisation brigade can go back in their box for a while.
The rail unions will be glum too.
Boris has his mandate to do more or less what he likes, as Tony Blair did in 1997.
All we need to know now is whether the ministerial team will change, and how they will proceed with Williams and Okervee.
Lilian Greenwood was re-elected, so she will probably continue as Transport Select Committee chair.

 

[hello]

can now wave goodbye to guards and say hello to doo in a big way

 

[Mag_seven]

The rail unions will be glum too.

I thought Mr Cash and the RMT wanted Brexit? They should be happy bunnies this morning surely?

 

[class26]

can now wave goodbye to guards and say hello to doo in a big way

and say hello to strikes !

 

[hello]

and say hello to strikes !

really!!!!!! thought Boris said he was going to make strikes on the railway illegal