RugbyRebels

Zhivago wrote:

Puja wrote:

Zhivago wrote:I just don't understand how extensive infrastructure damage from a war can be regarded as a reason why it is better. The reason why is that Netherlands has a much more developed democracy than the UK.

Literally explained it to you once already - building something new/replacing something from scratch is a hell of a lot easier than trying to upgrade something that still kinda works while people are using it and complaining about the disruption that you're causing, especially when politicians are keen to just shove a cheap sticking plaster on it and call it a problem for the next administration.

That's not to say that our railway hasn't been starved of proper funding for decades or that our democracy is not pretty rubbish. It's saying that comparing our rail network to other countries in Europe and saying "If they can do it, we can" is simplistic and reductive.

Puja

You can 'explain' all you like. It doesn't make it true. Switzerland (neutral in both wars) also have mostly electric lines - no war damage. Also a very developed democracy.

Switzerland's main lines were mostly constructed late 19th century and early 20th century, with some major trunks constructed in 1960s and 1970s. They're not upgrading through tunnels that were built for early steam engines and don't have room for electric pylons.

Also, you appear to be framing this as I'm saying that government funding is not an issue. For clarity, government funding is absolutely an issue, as is British individualism, unwillingness to commit to communal projects for the common good, the shoddy state of our democracy, and lots of other things. Switzerland's rail is mostly electrified because they committed to it early, spent a decent amount of money on it and got it done in the first half of the 20th century*. However, it is still true that this is an issue too and means that just saying, "Why can't we do this?" doesn't take into account this complication which you seem determined to utterly dismiss for no apparent reason.

Puja


*Although while we're discussing WW2 which has apparently no effect on anyone's rail systems, google tells me that Swiss electrification was accelerated by them having shortages of coal because of WW2 so they had no choice but to convert, whereas we had both coal mines and a lack of available cash to spend on infrastructure upgrades.

Puja wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Puja wrote:
Literally explained it to you once already - building something new/replacing something from scratch is a hell of a lot easier than trying to upgrade something that still kinda works while people are using it and complaining about the disruption that you're causing, especially when politicians are keen to just shove a cheap sticking plaster on it and call it a problem for the next administration.

That's not to say that our railway hasn't been starved of proper funding for decades or that our democracy is not pretty rubbish. It's saying that comparing our rail network to other countries in Europe and saying "If they can do it, we can" is simplistic and reductive.

Puja

You can 'explain' all you like. It doesn't make it true. Switzerland (neutral in both wars) also have mostly electric lines - no war damage. Also a very developed democracy.

Switzerland's main lines were mostly constructed late 19th century and early 20th century, with some major trunks constructed in 1960s and 1970s. They're not upgrading through tunnels that were built for early steam engines and don't have room for electric pylons.

Also, you appear to be framing this as I'm saying that government funding is not an issue. For clarity, government funding is absolutely an issue, as is British individualism, unwillingness to commit to communal projects for the common good, the shoddy state of our democracy, and lots of other things. Switzerland's rail is mostly electrified because they committed to it early, spent a decent amount of money on it and got it done in the first half of the 20th century*. However, it is still true that this is an issue too and means that just saying, "Why can't we do this?" doesn't take into account this complication which you seem determined to utterly dismiss for no apparent reason.

Puja


*Although while we're discussing WW2 which has apparently no effect on anyone's rail systems, google tells me that Swiss electrification was accelerated by them having shortages of coal because of WW2 so they had no choice but to convert, whereas we had both coal mines and a lack of available cash to spend on infrastructure upgrades.

I'm not particularly keen to keep debating your ridiculous theories that not having destroyed infrastructure, lack of resources, or being pioneers are valid reasons/excuses for our lack of progress. All of these reasons are inconsequential.

Now that we've established that we have a dreadful railway, it would be more constructive to discuss solutions to this. As has been mentioned before, it seems to be a problem of political will. Therefore how do we get our politicians to care about it?

Boris removed in a coup. Will the U.K. be the scene of not only the first but the second coup to be stopped peacefully in a law court? #stopthecoups

Mellsblue wrote:

Boris removed in a coup. Will the U.K. be the scene of not only the first but the second coup to be stopped peacefully in a law court? #stopthecoups

Must have been reading Donald's memoirs.

And she really doesn't understand how British politics works. I assume that if plotters against Boris have committed a coup then they will face criminal charges. Like she, Boris and JRM would for conspiring against Theresa May?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... -red-wall/

43bn EUR is a lot of money to spend on making part of our railways first class while so much is third class

Is there any part of HS2 which still makes sense? Yes theres an infra structure upgrade from London to the North West which is useful, but there are worse parts of the network in my opinion. HS3 would have been a far better investment to link up the 'Northern Powerhouse'.

If the requirement was to have faster trains to London (not that much quicker) and more of them (but fewer people using network due to wide spread work from home) then it does seem like money down the drain in current form.

The main driver behind HS2 is to free up slots on existing lines for freight and local services. The thinking that HS2 is just for speed and more intercity isn’t true.
Pretty much every think tank and politician in the north is pro-HS2…
I agree that the high speed line from Liverpool to Hull and Newcastle should’ve been the priority. It’s pretty galling watching the £billions spent on Crossrail to improve the already pretty fantastic train network in and around London whilst east - west trains oop north are shoite or nonexistent.

Just in case anyone thinks the private sector is intrinsically more efficient than the public sector - it's not:

https://docs.gre.ac.uk/rep/faculty-of-b ... efficiency

This is one of the reasons I would nationalize natural monopolies - railways, utilities. Where this is impossible (eg the entity is foreign) or high levels of innovation are needed (eg Facebook, Google, Windows), strong regulation is needed, although the creation of a publicly controlled alternative might be an option.

‘EPSU is the European Federation of Public Service Unions. It is the largest federation of the ETUC and comprises 8 million public service workers from over 275 trade unions; EPSU organises workers in the energy, water and waste sectors, health and social services and local and national administration, in all European countries including in the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood. EPSU is the recognized regional organization of Public Services International (PSI).’

‘PSIRU researches the privatisation and restructuring of public services around the world, with special focus on water, energy, waste management, and healthcare.
It produces reports and maintains an extensive database on the multinational companies involved. This core database and website are financed by Public Services International (PSI), the global confederation of public service trade unions.‘

Attack article on Corbyn in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... leadership

Keir Starmer’s game isn’t to inspire with hope and a grand vision, but to play a glorified game of whack-a-mole with every possible Tory attack line. He promises, for example, “no magic money tree economics”, no nationalisation of public services, that Labour won’t talk to the SNP or deal with Liberal Democrats. And the unions must be held at arm’s length so as not to frighten the horses of the right or some fictional middle England swing voter. When really, even the more conservative voters he hopes to reach are concerned about wages and the cost of living.

Puja

Puja wrote:Attack article on Corbyn in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... leadership

Keir Starmer’s game isn’t to inspire with hope and a grand vision, but to play a glorified game of whack-a-mole with every possible Tory attack line. He promises, for example, “no magic money tree economics”, no nationalisation of public services, that Labour won’t talk to the SNP or deal with Liberal Democrats. And the unions must be held at arm’s length so as not to frighten the horses of the right or some fictional middle England swing voter. When really, even the more conservative voters he hopes to reach are concerned about wages and the cost of living.

Puja

He lied his way to the leadership
He's trying to lie his way to Downing Street.
Why do we keep getting liars?

Why do we keep getting liars?

Possibly because the level of media debate has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. It’s all about easy answer sound bites which are simple to understand but ultimately lie to the electorate.

Zhivago wrote:Why do we keep getting liars?

Because we keep voting for them

Tony Blair without any vision or charisma (but possibly not as vain) vs Truss the populist robot. FFS. And there's always Sir Ed and smashing the walls and doors down looking like Uncle Fester.

Stop the UK I want to get off.

Which Tyler wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Why do we keep getting liars?

Because we keep voting for them

Because FPtP is a ridiculous system that presents a binary choice between crap and slightly less crap. We need MMP or PR, pronto.

Puja

We’ve had plenty of talented leaders via fptp and ultimately that system didn’t make Corbyn, May, Johnson, Starmer and Truss our flawed choices.
Personally, I blame A Campbell, debates and social media for reducing our political discourse down to bite size chunks.

Puja wrote:Because FPtP is a ridiculous system that presents a binary choice between crap and slightly less crap. We need MMP or PR, pronto.

This is absolutely true, and I 100% prefer a system of PR (and federalisation, TBH)

But I dont think that's what's given us liars and populists, and exaggereated the omnipresent short-termism. I blame social media / reality TV for those.

I blame Neo capitalism, as I’m pretty sure without it we would be better off in every single area. Just Banquo would never agree to slashing his pension pot for the greater good.

Stom wrote:I blame Neo capitalism, as I’m pretty sure without it we would be better off in every single area. Just Banquo would never agree to slashing his pension pot for the greater good.

Exhibit a that we’ve become a society that distils everything down to one extreme soundbite devoid of any nuance.

Mellsblue wrote:We’ve had plenty of talented leaders via fptp and ultimately that system didn’t make Corbyn, May, Johnson, Starmer and Truss our flawed choices.
Personally, I blame A Campbell, debates and social media for reducing our political discourse down to bite size chunks.

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:Because FPtP is a ridiculous system that presents a binary choice between crap and slightly less crap. We need MMP or PR, pronto.

This is absolutely true, and I 100% prefer a system of PR (and federalisation, TBH)

But I dont think that's what's given us liars and populists, and exaggereated the omnipresent short-termism. I blame social media / reality TV for those.

Fair points. I think I'm probably better saying that FPtP removes any opportunity to escape from the cycle, as leaders are chosen by the increasingly weird memberships and there's no real option for anyone to pick an option that's not, "Oh go on then, I suppose they're not as bad as the other one".

I think Trump was a major part in the decline. So much of our political systems are based on trust, honesty, precedent, and "doing the honourable thing". So many of our control and censure mechanisms require the active engagement of the person being censured and them being "a gentleman" about it and doing the right thing. Trump was the first politician to really road-test the theory of, "Well, what happens if I just... don't?" and it turns out that, if the person blatantly lying doesn't play along resign in shame after being caught, nothing really happens, not even public opprobrium if it's played well enough.

Puja

Stom wrote:I blame Neo capitalism, as I’m pretty sure without it we would be better off in every single area. Just Banquo would never agree to slashing his pension pot for the greater good.

I am selfish like that. I’d like to think the millions in tax I’d paid might have helped somebody out though

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:I blame Neo capitalism, as I’m pretty sure without it we would be better off in every single area. Just Banquo would never agree to slashing his pension pot for the greater good.

Exhibit a that we’ve become a society that distils everything down to one extreme soundbite devoid of any nuance.

Nah, that’s just Stom

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:We’ve had plenty of talented leaders via fptp and ultimately that system didn’t make Corbyn, May, Johnson, Starmer and Truss our flawed choices.
Personally, I blame A Campbell, debates and social media for reducing our political discourse down to bite size chunks.

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:Because FPtP is a ridiculous system that presents a binary choice between crap and slightly less crap. We need MMP or PR, pronto.

This is absolutely true, and I 100% prefer a system of PR (and federalisation, TBH)

But I dont think that's what's given us liars and populists, and exaggereated the omnipresent short-termism. I blame social media / reality TV for those.

Fair points. I think I'm probably better saying that FPtP removes any opportunity to escape from the cycle, as leaders are chosen by the increasingly weird memberships and there's no real option for anyone to pick an option that's not, "Oh go on then, I suppose they're not as bad as the other one".

I think Trump was a major part in the decline. So much of our political systems are based on trust, honesty, precedent, and "doing the honourable thing". So many of our control and censure mechanisms require the active engagement of the person being censured and them being "a gentleman" about it and doing the right thing. Trump was the first politician to really road-test the theory of, "Well, what happens if I just... don't?" and it turns out that, if the person blatantly lying doesn't play along resign in shame after being caught, nothing really happens, not even public opprobrium if it's played well enough.

Puja

Spin doctoring predated Trumps rise by about 20 years, ditto social media by about 15. Trump is /was the shittiest of lightning rods.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:We’ve had plenty of talented leaders via fptp and ultimately that system didn’t make Corbyn, May, Johnson, Starmer and Truss our flawed choices.
Personally, I blame A Campbell, debates and social media for reducing our political discourse down to bite size chunks.

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:Because FPtP is a ridiculous system that presents a binary choice between crap and slightly less crap. We need MMP or PR, pronto.

This is absolutely true, and I 100% prefer a system of PR (and federalisation, TBH)

But I dont think that's what's given us liars and populists, and exaggereated the omnipresent short-termism. I blame social media / reality TV for those.

Fair points. I think I'm probably better saying that FPtP removes any opportunity to escape from the cycle, as leaders are chosen by the increasingly weird memberships and there's no real option for anyone to pick an option that's not, "Oh go on then, I suppose they're not as bad as the other one".

I think Trump was a major part in the decline. So much of our political systems are based on trust, honesty, precedent, and "doing the honourable thing". So many of our control and censure mechanisms require the active engagement of the person being censured and them being "a gentleman" about it and doing the right thing. Trump was the first politician to really road-test the theory of, "Well, what happens if I just... don't?" and it turns out that, if the person blatantly lying doesn't play along resign in shame after being caught, nothing really happens, not even public opprobrium if it's played well enough.

Puja

There is one slight reason for hope: although a number of factors brought Johnson down (that's assuming he really is leaving No.10 for good . . . ), it was the lying that really did for him. Not the parties, but the lying, the layered lies upon lies about the parties.

Which might be, dare we hope, a lesson politicians will pay a little attention to?

(NB I don't think this applies in America. I think Trump can lie with total impunity.)

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:I blame Neo capitalism, as I’m pretty sure without it we would be better off in every single area. Just Banquo would never agree to slashing his pension pot for the greater good.

I am selfish like that. I’d like to think the millions in tax I’d paid might have helped somebody out though

Bah, who wants tax. We should all just get free ice cream Sundaes.