Parties Rail Policies Election 2015

[yorksrob]

Fantastic election result. As much as I completely disagree on their stupidly expensive IEP project, at least with majority Tory govt projects like HS2 will be built rather than the Labour parties half hearted support of it. The economy should grow and the railways will follow suit.

The economy can grow in many ways. Which bits grow and where the wealth goes are the key factors.

 

[Dave1987]

The economy can grow in many ways. Which bits grow and where the wealth goes are the key factors.

We live in a society where hard work pays. No one should be allowed to expect the state to carry them. I have worked extremely hard to get to the position I am in now. I resent any politician wanting to tax me more to give that tax to someone wanting a free ride in life. Projects like HS2 will grow the economy and pay for themselves.

 

[ScotGG]

I agree hard work should pay which is why I'm amazed the Tories have managed to pull the wool over so many peoples eyes by carrying on Labour's policies on welfare. Housing benefit has gone up and now costs taxpayers £25 billion a year. After selling housing association homes that is projected to rise to £30 billion taxpayers money a year, much to private landlords.

'Tax credits' (a benefit despite the deliberately misleading name given by Gordon Brown) are also now £30 billion a year and rising £1b per year. Huge sums but they've pushed cuts in jobseekers (cost £4b a year) to the public to disguise benefit cost rises seen elsewhere of far bigger amounts.

This has meant the deficit is still £87b a year and so non protected budgets will be cut 30%. That includes transport.

I can understand some thinking Labour went way too far with benefits, but the tories went further and the huge cost has kept the deficit up so areas like transport suffers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Personally I thought the Coalition DfT did pretty well and demonstrated a strongly pro-rail policy.
We'll soon see what a 100% Tory DfT will do, and whether the "£12 billion extra cuts" will have any impact on rail.
Expect a lot more on Northern Powerhouse (George Osborne has already mentioned it today).

That £12b cut is not for rail. Transport budget is separately earmarked for 30% cuts.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

That £12b cut is not for rail. Transport budget is separately earmarked for 30% cuts.

Which makes the generous specification for the new Northern franchise all the more problematic.
Other franchises will have to generate more premiums to pay for it.

 

[Dave1987]

I think Mr Osborne realises that infrastructure spending on roads and railways is good for the economy. Considering how much traffic jams and disruption on the railways is stated to cost the economy, I would say that capital spending on infrastructure improvements on the railways are one area that won't be cut.

 

[route:oxford]

Maybe Boris will be given a Transport Minister role with him having a bus obsession.

I'd be happy with Boris for Transport. It needs someone who is very visible.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree hard work should pay which is why I'm amazed the Tories have managed to pull the wool over so many peoples eyes by carrying on Labour's policies on welfare. Housing benefit has gone up and now costs taxpayers £25 billion a year. After selling housing association homes that is projected to rise to £30 billion taxpayers money a year, much to private landlords.

'Tax credits' (a benefit despite the deliberately misleading name given by Gordon Brown) are also now £30 billion a year and rising £1b per year. Huge sums but they've pushed cuts in jobseekers (cost £4b a year) to the public to disguise benefit cost rises seen elsewhere of far bigger amounts.

This has meant the deficit is still £87b a year and so non protected budgets will be cut 30%. That includes transport.

I can understand some thinking Labour went way too far with benefits, but the tories went further and the huge cost has kept the deficit up so areas like transport suffers.

That's precisely the problem.

A broken housing market, which blocks even talented people on a professional wage from progressing to their own home, and a broken labour market, which can't pay people enough to function in the economy in which they work, are key problems.

In work benefits are just a subsidy to employers who don't pay their workers cost of living in the end.

The sale of HA homes is a disastrous and poorly thought out policy which will only add to the housing problem.

 

[pemma]

Fantastic election result. As much as I completely disagree on their stupidly expensive IEP project, at least with majority Tory govt projects like HS2 will be built rather than the Labour parties half hearted support of it. The economy should grow and the railways will follow suit.

We won't actually see many Tory projects until after the next election. It'll be 2018 or later before they've finished the last Labour government's projects like Great Western electrification, Blackpool electrification, Thameslink and the Ordsall Chord.

Even HS2 was a Labour plan which the Tories have carried through. Although, Labour did add the caveat that they'd pull HS2 if the costs spiralled out of control.

 

[D1009]

We live in a society where hard work pays. No one should be allowed to expect the state to carry them. I have worked extremely hard to get to the position I am in now. I resent any politician wanting to tax me more to give that tax to someone wanting a free ride in life. Projects like HS2 will grow the economy and pay for themselves.

You appear to be judging the rest of the population as yourself. Not everyone has the ability to be as successful as you.

 

[Haydn1971]

We live in a society where hard work pays. No one should be allowed to expect the state to carry them. I have worked extremely hard to get to the position I am in now. I resent any politician wanting to tax me more to give that tax to someone wanting a free ride in life. Projects like HS2 will grow the economy and pay for themselves.

That's just the sort of statement that makes me feel sick to the heart - I too have worked hard to get the very well paid career that I have - I got there via being born in a hospital I'd not paid for, an education system I had not paid for, a house provided by the council and early college education funded by the state... Oh, plus a one parent benefit sum each week....

I've spent my life in both the private and public sector designing public buildings, roads, tramways, motorways that are effectively free at the point of access, I've invested many years of my career in road safety, I've no idea how many peoples lives I've changed in the process...

My mum, worked all her life in the fire service and paid her taxes. Shift patterns and high stress levels dealing with burning people on the 999 system kinda buggered her health up, succumbed to diabetes, things haven't gone well for her, kidney failure, neuropathy, sight issues, had a leg amputated five years back putting her in a wheelchair, she now suffered from depression, costs several £10's of thousands to keep her alive, she's clearly just getting a free ride on your tax via the state, there's millions taking the system for a ride obviously !

I despise people that can't see past themselves, I feel a strong moral obligation to "pass it on" to the next generation as payback to the generation before me that paid through taxation to get me a better life that I had now.

What I could agree with, is that there is a small sub-culture of career benefits claimants, who in reality would probably do more damage in work and be involved in more crime if the benefits system didn't prop them up - that's something that could always be managed better, but don't start deluding yourself into thinking cutting their benefits would make things better - it won't !

 

[Dave1987]

That's just the sort of statement that makes me feel sick to the heart - I too have worked hard to get the very well paid career that I have - I got there via being born in a hospital I'd not paid for, an education system I had not paid for, a house provided by the council and early college education funded by the state... Oh, plus a one parent benefit sum each week....

I've spent my life in both the private and public sector designing public buildings, roads, tramways, motorways that are effectively free at the point of access, I've invested many years of my career in road safety, I've no idea how many peoples lives I've changed in the process...

My mum, worked all her life in the fire service and paid her taxes. Shift patterns and high stress levels dealing with burning people on the 999 system kinda buggered her health up, succumbed to diabetes, things haven't gone well for her, kidney failure, neuropathy, sight issues, had a leg amputated five years back putting her in a wheelchair, she now suffered from depression, costs several £10's of thousands to keep her alive, she's clearly just getting a free ride on your tax via the state, there's millions taking the system for a ride obviously !

I despise people that can't see past themselves, I feel a strong moral obligation to "pass it on" to the next generation as payback to the generation before me that paid through taxation to get me a better life that I had now.

What I could agree with, is that there is a small sub-culture of career benefits claimants, who in reality would probably do more damage in work and be involved in more crime if the benefits system didn't prop them up - that's something that could always be managed better, but don't start deluding yourself into thinking cutting their benefits would make things better - it won't !

What I hate is seeing people on the dole with their iPhones, smoking and drinking boasting how its their "pay day" on Thursday so they are going out on the town with their benefits. They of course have the customary child so they get the house or flat on the tax payer. THAT is what I hate, people who are getting a free ride off of the hard work of others. Not those who are in genuine need and not just faking a back injury or depression so they can live off of DLA. Question my morals all you like but there are clearly a huge amount in this country who feel exactly the same as me. Those who genuinely need help should get more, but those who want a free ride should be told to get job hunting.

 

[Haydn1971]

What I hate is seeing people on the dole with their iPhones, smoking and drinking boasting how its their "pay day" on Thursday so they are going out on the town with their benefits. They of course have the customary child so they get the house or flat on the tax payer. THAT is what I hate, people who are getting a free ride off of the hard work of others. Not those who are in genuine need and not just faking a back injury or depression so they can live off of DLA. Question my morals all you like but there are clearly a huge amount in this country who feel exactly the same as me. Those who genuinely need help should get more, but those who want a free ride should be told to get job hunting.

Ah, you've bought into the divide and conquer ethos created by stereotyping a very small faction of wastefuls - putting aside that the bloke smoking and drinking outside the dole office could be a ex squaddie with post traumatic stress from Afghanistan, the single mum with a toddler could have been punched by her abusive partner or parent, the "faker" you see could be actually someone injured at work because of a safety shirking employer....

There's no absolutes in this world, just a range of stories, some more believable than others, I don't doubt there are some scroungers in society, but don't be so quick to tarnish more people than you should be.

 

[Dave1987]

Ah, you've bought into the divide and conquer ethos created by stereotyping a very small faction of wastefuls - putting aside that the bloke smoking and drinking outside the dole office could be a ex squaddie with post traumatic stress from Afghanistan, the single mum with a toddler could have been punched by her abusive partner or parent, the "faker" you see could be actually someone injured at work because of a safety shirking employer....

There's no absolutes in this world, just a range of stories, some more believable than others, I don't doubt there are some scroungers in society, but don't be so quick to tarnish more people than you should be.

So why are the lefties so against the work capability assessments to find the fakers from the genuines?

Yes there are the genuine people out there but there are also a lot of people who want a free ride. Why shouldn't the govt have a mandate to ensure they don't get one off of the back of hard working people?

 

[Robertj21a]

Ah, you've bought into the divide and conquer ethos created by stereotyping a very small faction of wastefuls - putting aside that the bloke smoking and drinking outside the dole office could be a ex squaddie with post traumatic stress from Afghanistan, the single mum with a toddler could have been punched by her abusive partner or parent, the "faker" you see could be actually someone injured at work because of a safety shirking employer....

There's no absolutes in this world, just a range of stories, some more believable than others, I don't doubt there are some scroungers in society, but don't be so quick to tarnish more people than you should be.

While I agree with much of what you say, there certainly appear to be far more scroungers than many of us are prepared to continually accept. When faced with cuts to benefits, a surprising number of people manage to find some employment and there has been evidence of many individuals setting up their own businesses for the first time - all good signs that we are, at long last, heading in the right direction.

 

[Haydn1971]

Can you guys provide hard facts on this "more" figure you are quoting ? Was it in the Daily Mail by any chance ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So why are the lefties so against the work capability assessments to find the fakers from the genuines?

Would that "against" view be formed from the huge number of errors these work capability assessments have made ? Perhaps the resulting suicides might be swaying the view too ?

 

[Class 170101]

Views may also be influenced by some stats I read about and it was something along the lines of the Austerity cuts affected the top 10% the greatest but the next most affected slice of society was the bottom 10%.

 

[Chris125]

So why are the lefties so against the work capability assessments to find the fakers from the genuines?

Oh come on, who are these 'lefties' that think people should be allowed to fake a disability? The issue people have is the way they are done, their reliability, the impact they have on vulnerable people with genuine issues and their use as a political tool to feed a stereotype that people on benefits are scroungers or fakers and that they represent a significant slice of the welfare bill.

 

[bnm]

Largest slice of the welfare bill? Pensioners.

Are they faking being old?

 

[WatcherZero]

Oh come on, who are these 'lefties' that think people should be allowed to fake a disability? The issue people have is the way they are done, their reliability, the impact they have on vulnerable people with genuine issues and their use as a political tool to feed a stereotype that people on benefits are scroungers or fakers and that they represent a significant slice of the welfare bill.

Indeed, 80% of refusals were being overturned on appeal. That's a shocking assessment accuracy.

Views may also be influenced by some stats I read about and it was something along the lines of the Austerity cuts affected the top 10% the greatest but the next most affected slice of society was the bottom 10%.

Bottom 30% next worst affected, 50-90 deciles are actually slightly better off because of tax cuts and not being entitled to income based benefits in the first place.

 

[Pigeon]

Lot of people on this thread attacking the wrong target - just as the propaganda, which is based on stirring up jealousy to suppress thought, is intended to achieve.

Instead of attacking people who are not working, attack the system that makes you waste all your time on work. If all the unnecessary work (such as: work that does not need to be done at all; work that does need to be done but far more of it is done than is needed; work that could be replaced by automation) was eliminated, there would be no need for people to work more than half a day a week. It is the perpetuation of the system of continuous work that is the true iniquity, and by attacking those people who by the mere fact of not working demonstrate that it is not necessary for everyone to work all the time and so weaken the system, you are acting to perpetuate that system and so helping to ensure that things will not get better for yourselves: you are making a rod for your own back.

Not sure how this is a rail policy, though...

I don't find it in the least surprising that HS2 has had no noticeable effect on the election results. Most people just don't care one way or the other - it is only on rail-specific forums such as this that there is any significant discussion of it. Those who do care don't care very much and care about other things a lot more. And those who stand for election on a platform based on one single matter only never get more than a handful of votes, whatever that single matter is.

 

[Robertj21a]

Lot of people on this thread attacking the wrong target - just as the propaganda, which is based on stirring up jealousy to suppress thought, is intended to achieve.

Instead of attacking people who are not working, attack the system that makes you waste all your time on work. If all the unnecessary work (such as: work that does not need to be done at all; work that does need to be done but far more of it is done than is needed; work that could be replaced by automation) was eliminated, there would be no need for people to work more than half a day a week. It is the perpetuation of the system of continuous work that is the true iniquity, and by attacking those people who by the mere fact of not working demonstrate that it is not necessary for everyone to work all the time and so weaken the system, you are acting to perpetuate that system and so helping to ensure that things will not get better for yourselves: you are making a rod for your own back.

Not sure how this is a rail policy, though...

I don't find it in the least surprising that HS2 has had no noticeable effect on the election results. Most people just don't care one way or the other - it is only on rail-specific forums such as this that there is any significant discussion of it. Those who do care don't care very much and care about other things a lot more. And those who stand for election on a platform based on one single matter only never get more than a handful of votes, whatever that single matter is.

I doubt that many on here are deliberately targeting people who won't work but, rather, the benefits system that has built up in the UK where they can consider a life on just benefits to be a lifestyle choice.
Benefits should be paid to those unable to work, through age or disability, with the rest contributing to society, through work.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

With a General Election less than a month which is predicted to be another hung parliament again.

This thread is to discuss Rail policies of the Political Parties

Despite the fact that there were other threads running on this website to cover matters different to the title of this thread running up to the General Election, anyone looking at the more recent postings upon this particular thread would find it very difficult to make a connection to the Rail policies of the political parties and the postings that actually appeared upon this particular thread.

 

[Mojo]

I think Mr Osborne realises that infrastructure spending on roads and railways is good for the economy.

Absolutely. And look and compare at the number of transport projects (not just roads) started under the Thatcher/Major governments compared to New Labour. Even in the North, which Thatcher "hated" (apparently).

 

[Haydn1971]

Absolutely. And look and compare at the number of transport projects (not just roads) started under the Thatcher/Major governments compared to New Labour. Even in the North, which Thatcher "hated" (apparently).

Being someone that works in the civil engineering industry, I can tell you now that it's impossible to progress a major project in a single government term, just about anything over £50M takes at least 2-3 government terms from inception to opening.

I was recently (2010-2014 timeframe) involved in high level inception stage designs of road and rail projects across Yorkshire and the NE, whilst some quick wins like junction capacity, new stations, bus priority may see the light of day before the end of this government term 15-20, many will not get on site until the 20-25 term, some will be beyond 2025, perhaps even beyond 2030 - these longer term projects include tramway extensions, new motorways, new railways - planning these at this time is basically an aspiration to do something between A and B, routes aren't even decided, budgets are loosely based upon x miles needed, multiplied by anticipated inflation, multiplied by optimism bias etc

Major projects take time, which is thankfully why budgets are now protected over longer terms instead of being at the pre-election whims of short sighted MP's

 

[Mojo]

Being someone that works in the civil engineering industry, I can tell you now that it's impossible to progress a major project in a single government term, just about anything over £50M takes at least 2-3 government terms from inception to opening.

This is true, hence why I mentioned the word "started;" rather than completed. It is surely the Government that stumps up the cash that should take the credit.

Hence my amusement at the complaint from Labour when Boris opened the East London line extension in 2010 and apparently tried to "take credit for it." Presumably just like Labour tried to take credit for Jubilee line extension, Manchester Metrolink phase 2, Midland Metro, Croydon Tramlink, High Speed 1, etc, etc?

 

[NotATrainspott]

I doubt that many on here are deliberately targeting people who won't work but, rather, the benefits system that has built up in the UK where they can consider a life on just benefits to be a lifestyle choice.
Benefits should be paid to those unable to work, through age or disability, with the rest contributing to society, through work.

It's necessary to have a not-insignificant section of the labour force unemployed so that you don't get massive increases in the rate of inflation. You then have to deal with these people, so that they don't all die of starvation, and since these people would need charity you may as well pay for it through the state so that everyone in society has to contribute.

 

[Mikey C]

This is true, hence why I mentioned the word "started;" rather than completed. It is surely the Government that stumps up the cash that should take the credit.

Hence my amusement at the complaint from Labour when Boris opened the East London line extension in 2010 and apparently tried to "take credit for it." Presumably just like Labour tried to take credit for Jubilee line extension, Manchester Metrolink phase 2, Midland Metro, Croydon Tramlink, High Speed 1, etc, etc?

I think Labour themselves would admit that infrastructure spending wasn't prioritised enough when they were in power.
in 1997 they cancelled the road building programme, but started few new rail schemes nationally until near the end of their 13 years.

I think Osborne is genuine with the Northern Hub project, as the country does need rebalancing, economically.

 

[kieron]

This is true, hence why I mentioned the word "started;" rather than completed. It is surely the Government that stumps up the cash that should take the credit.

Myself, I'd also give governments credit for not cancelling something I'm in favour of. Spending from tomorrow's budget is easy, particularly if you don't know if you'll be in office tomorrow to see if your numbers add up.

Especially now we have PFI (and Network Rail) to ensure that our infrastructure projects are paid for by the next generation, never mind the next government.

 

[Robertj21a]

It's necessary to have a not-insignificant section of the labour force unemployed so that you don't get massive increases in the rate of inflation. You then have to deal with these people, so that they don't all die of starvation, and since these people would need charity you may as well pay for it through the state so that everyone in society has to contribute.

It doesn't need to be a significant % just to keep inflation in check. Even that small number of people can take part in some organised work experience and/or community-based activity to keep them 'employed' and contributing to society as a whole.

Anyway, we've all strayed off-topic somewhat !

 

[NotATrainspott]

It doesn't need to be a significant % just to keep inflation in check. Even that small number of people can take part in some organised work experience and/or community-based activity to keep them 'employed' and contributing to society as a whole.

Anyway, we've all strayed off-topic somewhat !

For an overview of what I'm talking about, read the Wikipedia article on full employment. The 'full employment' rate of unemployment will be around 3-5%, partly because the distribution of remaining skills in the labour force may not match up to what is necessary for more employment to happen (e.g. there's no point having 1000 unemployed bricklayers if the next barrier to more employment is that there aren't enough electrical engineers.)

In any case, as others have said, the plans for the rail network won't be able to change that much because so much has been planned already.