Green Party and Future Rail Projects

[Masboroughlad]

Unlikely to get into power but a possible coalition partner. Sadly HS2 not supported by Greens, but they claim they want new tramway systems and reopen some lines.

Does anybody know where I could see a list if their cities and towns proposed for trams and also new lines and Beeching closures identified for heavy rail?

Red and Green coalition anybody?

 

[starrymarkb]

Might be worth emailing them and asking?

 

[Johnuk123]

Won't be in coalition and certainly never be in power, so irrelevant.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Unlikely to get into power but a possible coalition partner. Sadly HS2 not supported by Greens,

Don't think they will be getting my support then.

 

[Manchester77]

Won't be in coalition and certainly never be in power, so irrelevant.

So? People have discussed the BNP and UKIPs rail policies before and we've never had comments like that and you could argue that the greens certainly have a better chance of having a say than the BNP! And while UKIP have been passed off as the working class protest vote the Green Party are seen by many as the party who you'd vote for if you identify as left wing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Red and Green coalition anybody?

Greens are far too left for 'new labour' to ever be in partnership. If labour actually started coming out with proper labour policies like nationalisation of energy, railways, Royal Mail, NHS services (the 4 things 75% or more of the public see better nationalised - regardless of political ideology) then I'd imagine it could be looked at but currently labour haven't committed to anything big like that because they fear they'll lose voters or something's (not really sure since they're spopular policies).

 

[ExRes]

So? People have discussed the BNP and UKIPs rail policies before and we've never had comments like that and you could argue that the greens certainly have a better chance of having a say than the BNP! And while UKIP have been passed off as the working class protest vote the Green Party are seen by many as the party who you'd vote for if you identify as left wing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Greens are far too left for 'new labour' to ever be in partnership. If labour actually started coming out with proper labour policies like nationalisation of energy, railways, Royal Mail, NHS services (the 4 things 75% or more of the public see better nationalised - regardless of political ideology) then I'd imagine it could be looked at but currently labour haven't committed to anything big like that because they fear they'll lose voters or something's (not really sure since they're spopular policies).

Agree totally with the first part, every political party has as much right as any other to have its policies listened to

Cannot agree though that nationalisation will ever happen, unless you support a policy of state theft then the present shareholders would have to be paid the going rate for their shares, no government, Labour or otherwise, would ever be able to find the resources to buy those shares, that 75% of the public would soon change their minds if their taxes were raised by a few pence in the pound to fund nationalisation

 

[Manchester77]

Agree totally with the first part, every political party has as much right as any other to have its policies listened to

Cannot agree though that nationalisation will ever happen, unless you support a policy of state theft then the present shareholders would have to be paid the going rate for their shares, no government, Labour or otherwise, would ever be able to find the resources to buy those shares, that 75% of the public would soon change their minds if their taxes were raised by a few pence in the pound to fund nationalisation

Who says that we would have to directly buy out every single share within a company at market price, when Railtrack was nationalised we didn't buy all the shareholders out they got compensation in the form of a few pence. Do you really think that when Attlee and his pioneering labour government nationalised our key assets that they had to nationalise electricity board for example?

I'd certainly be happy to pay an extra pence of income tax if it meant that the money went to funding government services like the NHS, the welfare state or renationalising the key industries. Whose to say that income tax would have to rise for everyone, why not just increase the number of increments with those who earn the most in society paying 80% on earnings over £200,000? There's more ways to increase funding than cutting and increasing tax for poorer people.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To nationalise the railways for example you don't need to buy out first group you wait for the contract to expire, same with renationalisation of the NHS - you wait for serco'so contract (for example) to expire and then let the NHS operate the contract (obviously after scrapping the any qualified provider clause!) Royal Mail would be a cease and compensate manoeuvre as would the energy sector

 

[Clip]

Agree totally with the first part, every political party has as much right as any other to have its policies listened to

Cannot agree though that nationalisation will ever happen, unless you support a policy of state theft then the present shareholders would have to be paid the going rate for their shares, no government, Labour or otherwise, would ever be able to find the resources to buy those shares, that 75% of the public would soon change their minds if their taxes were raised by a few pence in the pound to fund nationalisation

You wouldnt have to give shareholders anything you just wouldnt re-let the franchises.

 

[90sWereBetter]

Booooo, not going to be voting for a party that hates motorsport, which I'd like to point out is one of the few industries in this country where we're still world leaders in (Motorsport Valley, most F1 teams are based in the UK, etc). Nor will I vote for an anti-HS2 party.

 

[yorksrob]

If the party has a good enough set of reopening proposals, I will gladly vote for them, HS2 or not. I'm sick and tired of being told be establishment parties that they have money for their grandes projects, but nothing for extending the day to day network.

 

[starrymarkb]

I don't agree with all of their policies (does anyone agree with every policy of the party they support?) but they are are a good fit in most areas!

I would consider them worthy of discussion. I mean they have more elected representatives in the UK then UKIP!

 

[Masboroughlad]

If the party has a good enough set of reopening proposals, I will gladly vote for them, HS2 or not. I'm sick and tired of being told be establishment parties that they have money for their grandes projects, but nothing for extending the day to day network.

I agree. If it was either or, large scale reopenings get my vote over HS2. I do want HS2 (and 3 and 4...) though.

Sadly, I think we will end up with neither eventually.

 

[Ash Bridge]

If the party has a good enough set of reopening proposals, I will gladly vote for them, HS2 or not. I'm sick and tired of being told be establishment parties that they have money for their grandes projects, but nothing for extending the day to day network.

If they supported reopenings on a serious scale and possibly some brand new routes and links to places that have never had railway I would then certainly support them. Once they were in place they could then then start working on a road closure programme.

 

[ExRes]

Who says that we would have to directly buy out every single share within a company at market price, when Railtrack was nationalised we didn't buy all the shareholders out they got compensation in the form of a few pence. Do you really think that when Attlee and his pioneering labour government nationalised our key assets that they had to nationalise electricity board for example?

I'd certainly be happy to pay an extra pence of income tax if it meant that the money went to funding government services like the NHS, the welfare state or renationalising the key industries. Whose to say that income tax would have to rise for everyone, why not just increase the number of increments with those who earn the most in society paying 80% on earnings over £200,000? There's more ways to increase funding than cutting and increasing tax for poorer people.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To nationalise the railways for example you don't need to buy out first group you wait for the contract to expire, same with renationalisation of the NHS - you wait for serco'so contract (for example) to expire and then let the NHS operate the contract (obviously after scrapping the any qualified provider clause!) Royal Mail would be a cease and compensate manoeuvre as would the energy sector

Interesting points, try to recall the way the Liberal party went about trying to gain election not many years ago though. Everyone was very supportive of their ideas on how to run the NHS for example, that was by raising income tax and national insurance, what happened when those people went to the ballot box, the Liberals got slaughtered because the average person in the street was not going to pay for reform

You're idea of raising tax is just old hat that's been tried before and is being shown for the disaster it is in France right now, the rich money makers won't stand for being screwed, they'll just up and pack their bags and tax in another country, get lost then you may well say, but where is your funding coming from now ?

Yes, you may get away with, eventually, running the franchises down, what are you going to do about the ROSCOs though ?, are you going to go down the compulsory purchase route and screw the rich and the pensioners whose income is coming from shares in major companies ?, if you pay the going rate then where is that money coming from ?, you could say up yours to the ROSCOs and build all new trains for your nationalised railway, where is the cash for that coming from ?

As for your cease and compensate idea for the electric, gas and water industries, well, are we all wanting to live in a dictatorship or have you got yet another pot of money to buy out the shareholders there as well ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You wouldnt have to give shareholders anything you just wouldnt re-let the franchises.

It's that easy is it ?

 

[DarloRich]

Won't be in coalition and certainly never be in power, so irrelevant.

Perhaps slightly more relevant than UKIP being as they have an actual MP.......

 

[Johnuk123]

Perhaps slightly more relevant than UKIP being as they have an actual MP.......

Won't be for long though as the solitary Brighton mp is widely expected to be voted out next May.

 

[Masboroughlad]

Perhaps slightly more relevant than UKIP being as they have an actual MP.......

Won't be for long though as the solitary Brighton mp is widely expected to be voted out next May.

I would say watch this space. More people who are disaffected with the others may switch to Green.

 

[Johnuk123]

I would say watch this space. More people who are disaffected with the others may switch to Green.

True, when people are upset about things they often turn to extremists.

 

[DarloRich]

Won't be for long though as the solitary Brighton mp is widely expected to be voted out next May.

Quite possibly - but at present they have more direct impact on the parliamentary framework of the country than UKIP.

True, when people are upset about things they often turn to extremists.

see the progress of UKIP

 

[Manchester77]

As for your cease and compensate idea for the electric, gas and water industries, well, are we all wanting to live in a dictatorship or have you got yet another pot of money to buy out the shareholders there as well ?

Yeah because the democratically elected Attlee labour administration which left government when the people voted them out definatly turned the UK into a dictatorship :roll:

 

[Butts]

I would say watch this space. More people who are disaffected with the others may switch to Green.

Why is The Green Party in Scotland separate from the rest of the UK and what are their views compared to contemporary Green Policies outwith Scotland ?

Whatever happened to Jonathan Porritt ?

 

[ExRes]

Yeah because the democratically elected Attlee labour administration which left government when the people voted them out definatly turned the UK into a dictatorship :roll:

If you don't renationalise by forcing shareholders to hand over their shares then how on earth do you expect the government to raise the cash to buy those shares at the market price ?

There's no point in throwing the word nationalisation around if you don't have the slightest idea of how you're going to do it, you're welcome to roll your eyes as many times as you like but an emoticon doesn't mean a fig, ask Salmond what happens when you don't have a plan to back up your talk

 

[Jonny]

If you don't renationalise by forcing shareholders to hand over their shares then how on earth do you expect the government to raise the cash to buy those shares at the market price ?

The government has more subtle ways to get some companies, e.g. Railtrack - otherwise you have to pay or confidence in the stock market and foreign investor confidence in the wider British economy is liable to collapse. Worse still, the courts might make the government pay anyway.

Of course, there are more subtle ways to attack private wealth... like inflation

 

[Manchester77]

If you don't renationalise by forcing shareholders to hand over their shares then how on earth do you expect the government to raise the cash to buy those shares at the market price ?

There's no point in throwing the word nationalisation around if you don't have the slightest idea of how you're going to do it, you're welcome to roll your eyes as many times as you like but an emoticon doesn't mean a fig, ask Salmond what happens when you don't have a plan to back up your talk

Yes but ceasing and asset and nationalising it doesn't mean that you live in a dictatorship, do you actually know the meaning of the word dictatorship? Are you genuinely putting the post war consensus era of british history in the same 'dictatorship' category as North Korea?

Why are you dismissing the idea of compensating shareholders? You've managed to divert any questions relating to that idea instead asking where would you find the money to outright buy each shareholder.

Ok I will ask Alex Salmond the man who manage to actually engage over 80% of the electorate to get inolved in politics and managed to give hope to the poorest members within scottish society. You're acting like the Yes vote got very little support when in reality they managed to get almost half of the population!

 

[ExRes]

Yes but ceasing and asset and nationalising it doesn't mean that you live in a dictatorship, do you actually know the meaning of the word dictatorship? Are you genuinely putting the post war consensus era of british history in the same 'dictatorship' category as North Korea?

Why are you dismissing the idea of compensating shareholders? You've managed to divert any questions relating to that idea instead asking where would you find the money to outright buy each shareholder.

Ok I will ask Alex Salmond the man who manage to actually engage over 80% of the electorate to get inolved in politics and managed to give hope to the poorest members within scottish society. You're acting like the Yes vote got very little support when in reality they managed to get almost half of the population!

What planet are you on ?, yes, I'm the one that's been asking you where the money was coming from to pay the shareholders, so tell me what is compensation if it's not paying the shareholders, what do you intend to compensate them with otherwise then ?

Salmond got 44% of the vote and lost because he couldn't convince the electorate that he had policies that could actually run an independent country, that view was also underlined by the fact he only won in five districts, the fact that over 80% of the electorate voted is against him as much as for him

Your North Korea comment is childish beyond belief, let me spell it out for you again, you buy shares at the proper price which means the government would have to find millions they don't have, more likely billions, or you take the shares away as a dictatorship would, is that any clearer now ?

 

[DarloRich]

What planet are you on ?, yes, I'm the one that's been asking you where the money was coming from to pay the shareholders, so tell me what is compensation if it's not paying the shareholders, what do you intend to compensate them with otherwise then ?

Salmond got 44% of the vote and lost because he couldn't convince the electorate that he had policies that could actually run an independent country, that view was also underlined by the fact he only won in five districts, the fact that over 80% of the electorate voted is against him as much as for him

Your North Korea comment is childish beyond belief, let me spell it out for you again, you buy shares at the proper price which means the government would have to find millions they don't have, more likely billions, or you take the shares away as a dictatorship would, is that any clearer now ?

Or you use the Railtrack (in administration) trick

 

[Manchester77]

What planet are you on ?, yes, I'm the one that's been asking you where the money was coming from to pay the shareholders, so tell me what is compensation if it's not paying the shareholders, what do you intend to compensate them with otherwise then ?

Railtrack wasn't a buyout because the shareholders received compensation when their assets were ceased, this money wasn't the share price it was compensation based on the valuation of the company. I don't get why you don't see this since I've spelled it out before.

Your North Korea comment is childish beyond belief, let me spell it out for you again, you buy shares at the proper price which means the government would have to find millions they don't have, more likely billions, or you take the shares away as a dictatorship would, is that any clearer now ?

No its not it was making the point that you saying that nationalisation by seizing the assets and giving shareholders pennies of compensation as has been done in the past is akin to what happens in a dictatorship is a plain lie since no one claims that the nationalisations in this country were done under a dictator.

 

[ExRes]

Railtrack wasn't a buyout because the shareholders received compensation when their assets were ceased, this money wasn't the share price it was compensation based on the valuation of the company. I don't get why you don't see this since I've spelled it out before.

No its not it was making the point that you saying that nationalisation by seizing the assets and giving shareholders pennies of compensation as has been done in the past is akin to what happens in a dictatorship is a plain lie since no one claims that the nationalisations in this country were done under a dictator.

Ok, so shareholders receiving money for their shares based on the value of those shares in the company wasn't them being paid for their shares, it was compensation, you do spell things out so clearly

Quote me then, if you actually read what was written you will see that I said you have two ways of doing things, one, by taking shares as a dictatorship would or two, paying the market value which the government does not have the resources to do

 

[Rhydgaled]

HS2 not supported by Greens

Do they give a reason for their lack of support? Do they support the principal but not the government's actual plan or are they opposed to the very idea of a new line?

Yes, you may get away with, eventually, running the franchises down, what are you going to do about the ROSCOs though ?

That is the hard part of nationalising the railways, and probably the biggest reason for doing it. I would suspect leglislation is the only way, to force the ROSCOs to hand over ownership of the rolling stock. It is quite possible however that the companies themselves could remain intact to provide maintenance services (I believe the ROSCOs offer dry, soggy or wet leasing options, which suggests maintenance is part of their business), would be a far more competitive market than leasing of finite assets for which demand exceeds supply.

What planet are you on ?, yes, I'm the one that's been asking you where the money was coming from to pay the shareholders, so tell me what is compensation if it's not paying the shareholders, what do you intend to compensate them with otherwise then ?

That certainly is the tricky bit, and I'm not sure if my idea of 'compensation' would be satisfactory. My idea is that the government would continue to pay leasing charges for fairly new or recently-refurbished stock to the ROSCOs for a period defined in the leglislation until the ROSCO has recouped its investment in the new/refurbished stock. Basically, ensuring the ROSCO doesn't make a loss but then stopping leasing payments for stock that has already earned its keep.

Won't be for long though as the solitary Brighton mp is widely expected to be voted out next May.

Why is she expected to lose her seat? Has she done anything to annoy the electorate? Has one of her rivals done something to gain support?

 

[starrymarkb]

Do they give a reason for their lack of support? Do they support the principal but not the government's actual plan or are they opposed to the very idea of a new line?

I believe they support high speed rail in General but are skeptical of the HS2 programme as it stands