You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Keir Starmer
- Thread starter urban genie
- Start date
Nothing was inextricably linked to leaving the EU. Unless it was staying in a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border.I see Keir Starmer and his MPs voted against the abolition of free movement of people tonight, this surprised me a little and I wondered what this showed. Especially as at the beginning of the year he stated that the argument to remain in the EU was over and accepted we were leaving. So I wondered did he do it because he just wanted to vote against the government as is the way will most opposition parties. Also does this vote show he is still out of touch with a large amount of his electorate? And finally does it show that despite saying the argument was over he will still do all he can to try and stop brexit. Clearly the ending of FOM was afterall inextricably linked to leaving the EU.
Rascal
El Presidente
Someone needs to present a clear argument on why it will be better, it will work and why it will cost the public less than train travel does now.
It’s no good just to say it for ideological reasons.
The money that subsidises the railways at the moment goes to companies from across Europe and in effect subsidises rail travel in those countries. Its fucking madness. State owned railway companies from Germany can take profit from UK trains to make their travel cheaper.
They were sold off for ideological reasons by people who equate the free market as good and the state sector as bad. Its the everything can and should be available for profit mentality of laissez faire capitalism. Its led to our rail fares being beyond ridiculous in that it is actually cheaper to fly to London from Manchester than it is to get the train at certain times in the day. I had to be in London for a meeting on a monday morning at 9am a couple of months back, it was actually much cheaper for me to travel down the day before and stay in a really nice hotel bang in the centre of the London by St Pauls than it was to travel down on the Monday morning.
In these days of Environmental concerns I would actually use the subsidy given to foreign train owners to make all rail travel in the UK free. It would reduce the amount of cars on the road, meaning reduced emissions and would increase productivity because traffic jams are one of the biggest drags we have on UK productivity. If Trains were invested in, the Beeching report reversed it could have an enormous impact on the environment and also make it possible for people to travel further for work. In the aftermath of COVID where the job market will shrink then opening up travel will also increase job prospects and national investment to reverse the Beeching report could create thousands of jobs.
Of course the old arguments about BR will come out, but what is never said is that the railways were hugely underinvested in for years because of the ideological attachment to cars and the car was seen as a bringer of individualism whilst the trains have always been seen as a collectivist idea
Ideologically It comes down to whether you are an individualist or a collectivist. And the argument is often framed in a way that why should people who drive cars help subsidise rail travel, but its never framed as why do train users subsidise road building.
You only have to look at Manchester with the trams, OK they arnt perfect but they have cut car travel into the city centre and made the City a greener place to live as well as bringing life back to the city centre and as a person who remember how grim Manchester was in the late 70s today its a totally different place and the trams have helped transform Manchester into a vibrant place once again. Improved trains, more services and if they were free of heavily subsidised would also enhance Manchester as a city, leading to more jobs, more green spaces and a more vibrant economy with more jobs.
Its not rocket science, its train science.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2009
- Messages
- 16,617
What are your thoughts on starmers vote Vic?Nothing was inextricably linked to leaving the EU. Unless it was staying in a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2009
- Messages
- 16,617
Is that because you just don't like him or you disagree with his vote last night.He is a fucking clown
The money that subsidises the railways at the moment goes to companies from across Europe and in effect subsidises rail travel in those countries. Its fucking madness. State owned railway companies from Germany can take profit from UK trains to make their travel cheaper.
They were sold off for ideological reasons by people who equate the free market as good and the state sector as bad. Its the everything can and should be available for profit mentality of laissez faire capitalism. Its led to our rail fares being beyond ridiculous in that it is actually cheaper to fly to London from Manchester than it is to get the train at certain times in the day. I had to be in London for a meeting on a monday morning at 9am a couple of months back, it was actually much cheaper for me to travel down the day before and stay in a really nice hotel bang in the centre of the London by St Pauls than it was to travel down on the Monday morning.
In these days of Environmental concerns I would actually use the subsidy given to foreign train owners to make all rail travel in the UK free. It would reduce the amount of cars on the road, meaning reduced emissions and would increase productivity because traffic jams are one of the biggest drags we have on UK productivity. If Trains were invested in, the Beeching report reversed it could have an enormous impact on the environment and also make it possible for people to travel further for work. In the aftermath of COVID where the job market will shrink then opening up travel will also increase job prospects and national investment to reverse the Beeching report could create thousands of jobs.
Of course the old arguments about BR will come out, but what is never said is that the railways were hugely underinvested in for years because of the ideological attachment to cars and the car was seen as a bringer of individualism whilst the trains have always been seen as a collectivist idea
Ideologically It comes down to whether you are an individualist or a collectivist. And the argument is often framed in a way that why should people who drive cars help subsidise rail travel, but its never framed as why do train users subsidise road building.
You only have to look at Manchester with the trams, OK they arnt perfect but they have cut car travel into the city centre and made the City a greener place to live as well as bringing life back to the city centre and as a person who remember how grim Manchester was in the late 70s today its a totally different place and the trams have helped transform Manchester into a vibrant place once again. Improved trains, more services and if they were free of heavily subsidised would also enhance Manchester as a city, leading to more jobs, more green spaces and a more vibrant economy with more jobs.
Its not rocket science, its train science.
I use trains all the time and think the current set up is an absolute disgrace. Northern Rail need to be flogged in my opinion. You don’t need to explain to me the cost of getting to London, the cost of a monthly pass and the service you get up here.
Well I’m more of an individualist than a collectivist, generally speaking and I don’t believe those that don’t use trains should pay for them. The idea of it being free to use and the taxpayer footing the bill, so it’s not actually free to use it means other people are paying it for you, when some won’t even use it is morally wrong. The only thing I think the opposite is with health care in which you have no choice but to need.
I’m happy to put them under national ownership and use the profits to reinvest in the rail network though, I have no complaints in doing that if it makes sense.
It should be done using the ticket money and the profits that are currently going elsewhere, though.
I have concerns over the ability of governments to run industry, governments are usually absolutely useless at most things and whether going that way over changing the competition and companies here is most cost effective way to go.
If Labour get in we’ll see.
I see Keir Starmer and his MPs voted against the abolition of free movement of people tonight, this surprised me a little and I wondered what this showed. Especially as at the beginning of the year he stated that the argument to remain in the EU was over and accepted we were leaving. So I wondered did he do it because he just wanted to vote against the government as is the way will most opposition parties. Also does this vote show he is still out of touch with a large amount of his electorate? And finally does it show that despite saying the argument was over he will still do all he can to try and stop brexit. Clearly the ending of FOM was afterall inextricably linked to leaving the EU.
Absolutely madness from them.
It’ll hinder them greatly.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
One step forwards, one step back.
If Starmer thinks he can cling on to his remain dream he is sadly mistaken.
If Starmer thinks he can cling on to his remain dream he is sadly mistaken.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 8,724
This is a bit disingenuous to be fair, they voted against the bill for a number of reasons, it wasn’t the principle of freedom of movement as such, it was the specific application of it that the conservatives want to implement.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
This is a bit disingenuous to be fair, they voted against the bill for a number of reasons, it wasn’t the principle of freedom of movement as such, it was the specific application of it that the conservatives want to implement.
Not too sure how you implement the end of free movement for EU citizens other than well.....ending it?
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 8,724
Not too sure how you implement the end of free movement for EU citizens other than well.....ending it?
I think you need to read the whole bill then! I thought Coopers amendment might have got more backing, it got some cross party support but nowhere near enough.
You meanThis is a bit disingenuous to be fair, they voted against the bill for a number of reasons, it wasn’t the principle of freedom of movement as such, it was the specific application of it that the conservatives want to implement.
It was the specific application that the conservatives want to implement it!
It’s like the old we do want to leave the Eu but we want to keep freedom of movement, common market and European court of justiceNot too sure how you implement the end of free movement for EU citizens other than well.....ending it?
But honestly we will leave!
Labour just can’t give itself a break
Just keep self harming
This is a bit disingenuous to be fair, they voted against the bill for a number of reasons, it wasn’t the principle of freedom of movement as such, it was the specific application of it that the conservatives want to implement.
This is one of his ten pledges on his own website as Labour Leader :
Full voting rights for EU nationals. Defend free movement as we leave the EU. An immigration system based on compassion and dignity. End indefinite detention and call for the closure of centres such as Yarl’s Wood.
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2009
- Messages
- 16,617
What did coopers ammendment say exactly? ThanksI think you need to read the whole bill then! I thought Coopers amendment might have got more backing, it got some cross party support but nowhere near enough.
Ancient Citizen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 15,712
Attacking Johnson incessantly is all well and good, but not much use when,One step forwards, one step back.
If Starmer thinks he can cling on to his remain dream he is sadly mistaken.
eventually, your true beliefs are revealed, and you're fundamentally opposed to the
people you need to vote for you.
Vote on what?What are your thoughts on starmers vote Vic?
Gareth Barry Conlon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 15,978
Absolutely madness from them.
It’ll hinder them greatly.
As i keep saying this is not in the slightest bit true. This is from back in March and shows the same trends are still persistent. Old less educated people want out, younger more qualified people want to rejoin. Every age group below 44 the majority want to rejoin and 73% of Labour voters want to rejoin. And that is before the shit hits the fan, BJ is walking us into an economic disaster. Backing him now in any form would be political suicide for Labour.
63 per cent of 18-24 year-olds, 60 per cent of 25-34 year-olds and 51 per cent of 35-44 year-olds wanting a return to Europe, while 69 per cent of over-65s want to stay out.
Large majorities of Labour voters (73 per cent), Liberal Democrats (85 per cent) and SNP supporters (86 per cent) wanted to be inside the EU, while 87 per cent of Conservatives wanted to stay out. EU membership was backed by a majority (61 per cent) of those with degrees but opposed by 74 per cent of those with no qualifications.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-rejoin-eu-younger-older-divide-a9384661.html
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
Attacking Johnson incessantly is all well and good, but not much use when,
eventually, your true beliefs are revealed, and you're fundamentally opposed to the
people you need to vote for you.
1.7 Million Labour leave voters deserted the party in December last year and look at votes like this and think they have learnt nothing!
Still, he will have the backing of metropolitan London...