Election 2019 - promises

Darandio · 27 Nov 2019

Justapunter said:
Yes. Volunteered in one. Have you ?

I still do, just as I volunteer at my local branch of Barnardos. Volunteering is the most rewarding thing i've done.

Going back to the part of your post I quoted, it just sounds like the Tory ignorance on the use of food banks. More have opened so they are used more? You make them sound like they are opened before needed and then people flock to them like a new branch of Aldi. Mainly used by recent arrivals? Don't see it. People just wanting free stuff? Don't see that either. People come to a food bank because they are referred there.

RailUK Forums

furnessvale · 27 Nov 2019

Darandio said:
Going back to the part of your post I quoted, it just sounds like the Tory ignorance on the use of food banks. More have opened so they are used more? You make them sound like they are opened before needed and then people flock to them like a new branch of Aldi. Mainly used by recent arrivals? Don't see it. People just wanting free stuff? Don't see that either. People come to a food bank because they are referred there.

Genuine question. If you turn up at a food bank without a referral, are you turned away?

Goldfish62 · 27 Nov 2019

furnessvale said:
Genuine question. If you turn up at a food bank without a referral, are you turned away?

You can't just turn up at a food bank. The notion is absurd. The main provider, the Trussell Trust, requires a referral from social services etc, and the various other independent ones have criteria to ensure that they are giving away food to those who are genuinely in need.

squizzler · 27 Nov 2019

Perhaps it is time for this thread to be relegated to the 'general discussion' area of the forum, since it has had naff all to do with railways for a couple of pages now.

Mikey C · 27 Nov 2019

squizzler said:
Perhaps it is time for this thread to be relegated to the 'general discussion' area of the forum, since it has had naff all to do with railways for a couple of pages now.

Or the non railway/transport stuff split out!

Darandio · 27 Nov 2019

furnessvale said:
Genuine question. If you turn up at a food bank without a referral, are you turned away?

Yes, certainly at the one I volunteer at. If someone turns up unreferred we will explain to them where they can go to obtain a referral and food voucher.

You will often find that some don't need the foodbank itself, but instead get referred to the Next Step programme, this is also the next step for those moving off food bank dependency. This is basically a membership where they pay £2.50 per week and can visit what is effectively a mini store on a weekly basis where they choose 10 items of shopping that are further surplus items from local supermarkets etc. For the £2.50, they will on average get around £10 worth of shopping.

class26 · 27 Nov 2019

Grumpy Git said:
The country could afford the proposals Labour are suggesting, but those that have the means to pay for it won't. Greed wins every time. How can we justify executives earning 200x the salary of a shop floor person, it was about 40x when I started work in the 1970's.

I've worked in sub-Sarahan Africa and have seen what happens when those at the top of the pile have everything (including 8' high barbed-wire topped fences around their mansions) and those at the bottom have 'nowt.

The press report today that Johnson has no budget set aside for his promise to provide upgrades to northern east-west railways either.

But it is business that generates the wealth which is then taxed to pay for what society deems desirable. Make it more difficult for business to function , which labours proposals most certainly will and the net result will be less wealth to tax. With less wealth to tax the bills will not go away, simply it will be necessary to tax further down the income chain.

jfollows · 27 Nov 2019

Trying to get back on topic, perhaps, further to my earlier post (number 144) of current and recent Conservative manifesto pledges I can add that the latest Private Eye doesn't think too much of the latest set of their promises, unsurprisingly:

SIGNAL FAILURES

Runaway
costs

From Private Eye No. 1510 29 November - 12 December 2019

BORIS Johnson’s promise of £500m to reconnect left-behind towns to the rail network won’t go far, thanks to the rocketing costs and sluggishness of rail schemes since the privatisation the Tories implemented to make the railways more “efficient”.

One of the simplest schemes would reinstate three miles of disused track between Bristol and Portishead, Somerset, and add two tiny new stations. The estimated cost (£15m in 2008) rose to £145m-£175m by 2017. That’s been cut to £116m by de-scoping, so Portishead would have one train an hour instead of two.

Across the Bristol Channel, similar cost-cutting condemned the Ebbw Valley railway (18 miles and six stations reinstated for under £50m by 2008) to years of overcrowding; retrofitting the missing infrastructure remains mired in delays and expense.

North Somerset Tory candidate Liam Fox won positive local publicity last month when he got rail minister Chris Heaton-Harris to confirm funding for the Portishead scheme. But Heaton-Harris said the cash depended on a “satisfactory business case”, and the government’s recently published “pipeline” of future rail upgrades reveals ministers still haven’t decided whether the scheme should be “delivered”.

Johnson’s “Beeching reversal fund” will reinstate stations at Ashington, Blyth, Skelmersdale, Willenhall, Darlaston, Fleetwood and Cleveleys, according to Tory aides. Residents needn’t hold their breath. The “pipeline” shows ministers haven’t agreed to design work for Ashington and Blyth — and completely ignores the others. Nor does it mention Henbury, Okehampton and Tavistock — all cited (alongside Portishead, Ashington and Blyth) when the Tories last pledged to reverse the “infamous Beeching cuts” in 2017.

DESPERATE to pinch northern Labour votes, Johnson promises more railway jam tomorrow, no doubt hoping voters are too stupid to notice the growing pile of broken Tory rail pledges.

His promise of “linking up the whole region” with a new Leeds-Manchester railway (which the Tories first announced in 2014) distracts from ministerial inaction over the dismal existing mainline between the cities. Last month West Yorkshire combined authority told transport secretary Grant Shapps of its “grave concern about the lack of a funding decision” for the line’s electrification and extra capacity, previously scheduled for completion by December 2018.

In 2015 Patrick McLoughlin, then transport secretary, said the new TransPennine Express (TPE) and Northern franchises would “deliver” the “premium-quality rail services that a Northern Powerhouse deserves”. Latest four-weekly statistics show the opposite: just 33 percent of TPE and 45 percent of Northern trains were on time, while TPE cancelled 8.9 percent and Northern 5.7 percent.

Many delays stem from inadequate capacity through Manchester Piccadilly. An extra platform and a pair of new east-west tracks were due by December 2018 (Eye 1458), but the new “pipeline” document reveals the government hasn’t even agreed to “develop” a solution there.

But hey ho. At least the cash saved by denying northerners extra east-west rail capacity should help towards the £3.5bn overspend on London’s east-west Crossrail.

‘Dr B Ching’

Edit: Add cartoon from same issue of Private Eye

LNW-GW Joint · 27 Nov 2019

The last line of the Private Eye piece is apposite:

But hey ho. At least the cash saved by denying northerners extra east-west rail capacity should help towards the £3.5bn overspend on London’s east-west Crossrail

It's quite true that overspends take money from other schemes - GW/NW electrification stole the funding for several other "committed" schemes, notably the MML.
Budgets are not jokes, they are real ceilings on departmental spend.
Crossrail overspend will be taking money from TfL and DfT budgets.
It's one thing to promise an avalanche of infrastructure spend in the election campaign, and another to balance the year-by-year Treasury limits on transport funding.
We'll have to wait for the next budget (Javid or McDonnell) to find out if the funding noose will be loosened.
Every billion extra increases Network Rail's debt too.

ChiefPlanner · 27 Nov 2019

DarloRich said:
I have no wish to denigrate the views of people who have more experience of the railway world than I ever will. However, I have seen "career railwaymen" in high positions and they are sometimes not up to it. They are fantastic operations/maintenance/engineering directors/ managers. They are not business managers. They can make decisions on the basis of it always having been that way and can reject new ideas because they are not of our world. That holds business back.

The fact someone has 30 years service is not, alone, grounds for promotion to a senior position and sometimes you need new blood, ideas or new people to stir things up and move a business on.

Indeed.

A good simplification for one of those blessed group who had the experience of the full BR management trainee experience was (a) first 10 years you are still learning , follow the rules and processes and get those on the ground experiences that you will boringly relate to anyone in your retirement. (b) Next 10 years you build on what you have learned and start changing things when relevant and challenging the status quo as you have good experience now and a bit of confidence (c) next 10 years+ you can do all that and start bringing people on in the industry , much as people did to you as a "newbie". (d) Having survived all the changes you can retire and enjoy yourself.

"Career" could be so interesting - so many of us travelled around South Wales to Suffolk in my case , and stuck in the London area) , but plenty of freight , passenger , operarting , people and planning experiences. I am particularly grateful for the LUL experience I got under Crossrail (1).

ohgoditsjames · 28 Nov 2019

I’m still bitter about the cancellation of the MML electrification and Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham being denied the wires. I hope that whoever is elected see’s sense and reinstates it. It’s an absolute farce and quite frankly embarrassing that we’ll be left with half a job done.

ExRes · 28 Nov 2019

ohgoditsjames said:
I’m still bitter about the cancellation of the MML electrification and Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham being denied the wires. I hope that whoever is elected see’s sense and reinstates it. It’s an absolute farce and quite frankly embarrassing that we’ll be left with half a job done.

Surely it depends on the real reason for the cancellation, if it was for political purposes then feel bitter, if it was for financial reasons then you should be grateful that yet more money isn't being borrowed and then paid for by all of us tax payers, you simply cannot keep digging a bigger and bigger debt hole

The Ham · 28 Nov 2019

ohgoditsjames said:
I’m still bitter about the cancellation of the MML electrification and Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham being denied the wires. I hope that whoever is elected see’s sense and reinstates it. It’s an absolute farce and quite frankly embarrassing that we’ll be left with half a job done.

The link below provides an overview of what each party proposes:
https://www.railway-technology.com/...k-politicians-pledging-for-the-rail-industry/

The MML doesn't appear to be listed, however the Lib Dems state:

No diesel trains will run beyond 2034, because the entire rail network will run on ultra-low-emission technology such as electric or hydrogen by then, the manifesto said.

Which is ambitious (probably too ambitious, but then it's it better to aim for 2034 and miss and hit 2040 or aim for 2040 and miss and hit 2045? Given that not all the trains aren't going to be ready for the 2020 deadline there's an argument that aiming earlier than you want isn't that bad an idea.

If course wiring up a LOT of the network in 15 years would be a significant (probably heroic) undertaking.

Otherwise the others are fairly quiet about electrification, even the Green Party only say:

To ensure lower carbon emissions, the Green Party is committed to “creating a government-owned rolling stock company which would invest in a fleet of new electric trains to run on newly electrified lines.”

Which isn't clear is that currently aged newly electrified lines or extra newly electrified lines?

squizzler · 29 Nov 2019

I understand Labour is about to launch a range of 'Regional Manifestos' covering England which will include what presumably includes a lot of delayed electrification. From the Guardian live feed (not easy to link because it is by definition a moving target):

The pledges include a number of transport projects, such as:

Northern Powerhouse Rail - improving connections between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Hull, and Newcastle, and cutting journey times

Investment in the Midlands Mainline railway

Electrification of lines around Bristol Temple Meads

Carlisle · 29 Nov 2019

387star said:
Labour guarantees a guard on all trains for clarity this includes DOO operators like Thameslink?

So then the following ensues,
1) OBSs are put on all former DOO routes
2) Unions sign agreement no train runs without one.
3) RMT launch national safe & accessible campaign insisting OBSs dispatch from all stations
4) They don’t immediately get their way so organise a national OBS ballot
5) The railway faces identical industrial ralations problems as today, just on a larger scale .

yorkie · 29 Nov 2019

Just a gentle 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.

I would have considered moving this thread there, but we do already have existing threads in that section covering the election.

Thank you.

Kite159 · 1 Dec 2019

Not sure if this should go here or in the general thread, but seems labour has plans to launch their own ticketing selling system.

Train ticket sales could be transformed under Labour plans for a central online booking portal.

The party wants to replace what it sees as a confusing system of sales by private train operators - with around 55 million types of fare available.

Instead, it is proposing a "one-stop shop" for fares with no booking fees if it wins the election on 12 December.

The proposal is part of broader plans by the party to nationalise the UK's train system.

Labour says nationalisation - which it plans to achieve within five years of coming to power - will allow fares to be capped and improve the reliability of services.

The plan to introduce a ticketing service to simplify rail ticket sales could create a competitor to existing third party ticket sellers such as Trainline, which floated on the London Stock Exchange in June.

Labour says passengers can already buy tickets directly from train companies, and that nationalisation would just simplify the process

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50619085

Sounds a bit pointless, and based on previous government website efforts over budget, limited and late

duncanp · 1 Dec 2019

Not sure if this should go here or in the general thread, but seems labour has plans to launch their own ticketing selling system.

You already have a one stop shop for selling tickets, as any of the train companies websites will sell a ticket for anywhere on the National Rail network.

So how are Labour going to simplify fares? Like many political promises, this one is short on detail, and looks like a soundbite to get a few votes in the election.

lordbusiness · 1 Dec 2019

duncanp said:
You already have a one stop shop for selling tickets, as any of the train companies websites will sell a ticket for anywhere on the National Rail network.

So how are Labour going to simplify fares? Like many political promises, this one is short on detail, and looks like a soundbite to get a few votes in the election.

It's all about control.

Marxist governments work on controlling everything.

Arguably you could say any government controls most aspects of a population but a Marxist government takes this further. If you control jobs, commerce, industry, transport, NHS, banking, education etc you can exert control over the population.

What JC and co want is everyone living in government owned houses, totally dependent on the state for jobs, food, health, welfare, housing, education etc. Old age will be spent in a government owned flat or house with just the state old age pension to live on (any private pension you have will non existent or worthless by this stage).

Unless you're one of the party faithful.

What the current labour slogan 'for the many, not the few' actually means is replacing the current few with another few, in other words 'for the even fewer-not the many'.

Ask any citizen of the old East Germany. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a great fan of the Tories but the current direction labour are taking is frightening.

If you've never read Orwells Animal Farm I suggest you do...

'All animals are equal but some are more equal than others'.

JonathanH · 1 Dec 2019

duncanp said:
So how are Labour going to simplify fares? Like many political promises, this one is short on detail, and looks like a soundbite to get a few votes in the election.

No doubt the various parties will have picked up on the rhetoric from RDG about simpler fares and will take that forward.

duncanp · 1 Dec 2019

I think the point is that Labour should say how they are going to simplify fares before the election, and not afterwards, if they want people to vote for them on that basis.

Simplifying fares implies reducing the range of fares available, which in turn implies that some fares will increase whilst others will reduce. It could also mean that restrictions on when tickets can be used are altered, either to become less onerous or more onerous. You only have to look at Virgin Trains allowing the use of off peak tickets all day on Fridays to see an example of this.

Perhaps Andrew Neill could ask Mr Corbyn "..How much will a ticket from London to Manchester cost after you have simplified the fare structure..?"

squizzler · 1 Dec 2019

lordbusiness said:
What JC and co want is everyone living in government owned houses, totally dependent on the state for jobs, food, health, welfare, housing, education etc. Old age will be spent in a government owned flat or house with just the state old age pension to live on (any private pension you have will non existent or worthless by this stage).

LOL, what planet are you living on!. Even the oligarch run media (Sun, Telegraph, Mail et.el.) don't require their audience to suspend their disbelief quite as far as you do.

Grumpy Git · 1 Dec 2019

lordbusiness said:
It's all about control.

Marxist governments work on controlling everything.

Arguably you could say any government controls most aspects of a population but a Marxist government takes this further. If you control jobs, commerce, industry, transport, NHS, banking, education etc you can exert control over the population.

What JC and co want is everyone living in government owned houses, totally dependent on the state for jobs, food, health, welfare, housing, education etc. Old age will be spent in a government owned flat or house with just the state old age pension to live on (any private pension you have will non existent or worthless by this stage).

Unless you're one of the party faithful.

What the current labour slogan 'for the many, not the few' actually means is replacing the current few with another few, in other words 'for the even fewer-not the many'.

Ask any citizen of the old East Germany. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a great fan of the Tories but the current direction labour are taking is frightening.

If you've never read Orwells Animal Farm I suggest you do...

'All animals are equal but some are more equal than others'.

Best laugh I've had in a while, not sure what you are smoking though?

muddythefish · 1 Dec 2019

ExRes said:
Surely it depends on the real reason for the cancellation, if it was for political purposes then feel bitter, if it was for financial reasons then you should be grateful that yet more money isn't being borrowed and then paid for by all of us tax payers, you simply cannot keep digging a bigger and bigger debt hole

Grayling announced the cancellation of the MML electrification at the same time he backed Crossrail2 .

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ossrail-2-days-after-ditching-electrification

So people are entitled to feel bitter because the MML delay was done for political reasons and economic reasons, ie a southern based minister and was happy to cancel a scheme that benefited the north while supporting yet another London and south east plan.

DynamicSpirit · 1 Dec 2019

lordbusiness said:
Arguably you could say any government controls most aspects of a population but a Marxist government takes this further. If you control jobs, commerce, industry, transport, NHS, banking, education etc you can exert control over the population.

What JC and co want is everyone living in government owned houses, totally dependent on the state for jobs, food, health, welfare, housing, education etc. Old age will be spent in a government owned flat or house with just the state old age pension to live on (any private pension you have will non existent or worthless by this stage).

Unless you're one of the party faithful.

What the current labour slogan 'for the many, not the few' actually means is replacing the current few with another few, in other words 'for the even fewer-not the many'.

Ask any citizen of the old East Germany. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a great fan of the Tories but the current direction labour are taking is frightening.

If you've never read Orwells Animal Farm I suggest you do...

'All animals are equal but some are more equal than others'.

What utter rubbish! What on Earth have you been reading? You are correct to the extent that Marxism does work on the basis of the Government controlling most parts of the economy, but try to make out that that's what the Labour Party, or most of its members or leadership is false and utterly ludicrous. To try to compare today's Labour Party with the former East Germany is equally ludicrous.

What almost everyone in the Labour Party wants is a decent society where everyone has the opportunity to lead a reasonable life, to have a job, have a good house or flat to live in, to have access to good healthcare and so on. I think you can legitimately criticise Labour for some naivety about the extent to which their current policies will work, but not for their motivations.

I really do worry when people serious come out with stuff like your post that is so completely divorced from reality.

JonathanH · 1 Dec 2019

duncanp said:
Simplifying fares implies reducing the range of fares available, which in turn implies that some fares will increase whilst others will reduce. It could also mean that restrictions on when tickets can be used are altered, either to become less onerous or more onerous.

What they say about 'simpler fares' is always the same - it goes something like

'We want everybody to benefit from lower fares, not just those who understand the system'

'The convenience and simplicity of the PAYG system in London on all commuter trains'

'Peak fares are too high'

It appears that the focus of all of the political parties is actually in controlling fares for commuters and peak time travellers because that is where the most votes and headlines lie. It is also where it is easiest to apply simplification and address the three points I noted.

LNW-GW Joint · 1 Dec 2019

Presumably this is the central retail system that would be needed for a nationalised system, with the various independent private TOC sites eliminated one by one.
What's disingenuous is that the DfT already has the powers to "simplify" and "cap" the fare structure, but has decided not to use them.
They could no doubt start with the LNER web site (where the DfT is already experimenting with single-leg pricing).
Many of the back-end systems and data feeds the TOCs use had their origins in BR anyway and have never really been changed.
Then again, we have devolution, so how will a "national" system work with different policies in Scotland and Wales (and elsewhere)?

ExRes · 1 Dec 2019

Yet again there seems to be no costing to this idea, more from the taxation increases 'for the rich' I assume, however much the ticketing system needs to be made easier to use there has to be some realistic idea of cost, does it include nationalising Trainline for instance or is the intention to put companies like them out of business and their employees on the dole?

158756 · 1 Dec 2019

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50621621

Labour has announced plans to slash rail fares by 33% and simplify ticket prices for part-time workers if it wins the election on 12 December.

The party also wants to make train travel free for young people under the age of 16 and build a central online booking portal with no booking fees.

The proposal is part of broader plans by the party to nationalise the UK's train system.

Conservative Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said the plan was "desperate".

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have also pledged to improve transport.

"Privatisation has created one of the most complex, exploitative and expensive ticketing systems in the world," said Andy McDonald, Labour's shadow transport secretary.

"Labour will scrap the bewildering and outdated fares and ticketing system that discriminates against part-time workers, discourages rail travel and excludes the young and low-paid."

Labour says nationalisation - which it plans to achieve within five years of coming to power - will allow fares to be capped and improve the reliability of services.

Rail fares to fall by 33% under Labour, and free travel for under 16s.

Big news. But whilst a third off ticket prices will be an improvement, that only puts prices back about ten years, maybe less, and rail travel has not been affordable for more than ten years.

Kite159 · 1 Dec 2019

So a third off fares, more money from the taxpayer and the magical money forest...

Election 2019 - promises

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Attachments

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member