UK General Election 2024

[brad465]

So the "Shapps moment" could be this year's Portillo moment, I guess.

Shapps losing will cause 4 Portillo moments

 

[YorkRailFan]

The Green's Transport policy in their manifesto:

Buses Urban bus services have dropped by 48% and rural buses by 52% since 2008. Yet they are vital to our communities. Every £1 invested in bus services is estimated to bring an economic return of £4.50. Elected Greens would push for local authority control and proper funding for bus services, to increase these in urban areas, and in rural areas ensure that there is a bus service to every village. We will empower local authorities to run bus services themselves if they see fit and provide a service that meets their community’s needs. Cities and sparsely populated rural areas will need different solutions; we need to give them the flexibility and funding. Rail Privatisation of the railways has failed – we have all experienced the decline in the standard of services, strikes and growing dissatisfaction. The railways should be the backbone of a sustainable transport system. Elected Greens will push for: • Investment in a modern, efficient, publicly owned railway, with affordable fares. • Greater investment in more rapid electrification so the rail network can be powered sustainably. • A national strategic approach to identifying those lines and stations which could be re-opened. This should be led by regional and local government to ensure the most benefits. • Train companies to be gradually brought back into public ownership, as existing contracts expire and rolling stock which is currently owned by leasing companies needs replacement.

Nothing on HS2, but they are pledging rail nationalisation and Local Authority taking control over bus services.

They go onto say on the topic of aviation and banning short haul flights:

Aviation is one of the fastest growing sources of global carbon emissions – and it’s the wealthiest driving this trend. The wealthiest people in the UK use more energy flying than the poorest use in every aspect of their lives. Just 1% of the world’s population accounts for more than half of the CO2 emissions from passenger air travel. We need to reduce how much we fly, and we need to do it fairly. Green MPs will campaign for: • A frequent-flyer levy to reduce the impact of the 15% of people who take 70% of flights. • A ban on domestic flights for a journey that would take less than three hours by train. • An end to the implicit subsidy for flying that results from kerosene being exempt from fuel duty: the carbon tax would apply to all kerosene for aviation sold in the UK • A halt to any expansion of airport capacity. • Investment in skills so that aviation and airport workers can move into rewarding alternative jobs as the number of flights declines. (In Wales, transport is devolved to the Welsh Government.)

Very similar stance to the Lib Dems on this.

The Greens are also saying that they would lower the voting age to 16 and make the House of Lords an elected chamber, how they'd do the latter isn't explained.

• Replacing the House of Lords with an elected second chamber. • Votes for 16-year-olds and residence-based voting rights.

 

[WesternLancer]

No mention of HS2 in the transport policy.

Interesting - as I thought they had a long standing opposition to HS2 as part of what I believe to be a muddled transport policy based on the idea that HS2 uses lots of energy and going slower is acceptable as a Green approach - but without commensurate policies to ban internal flights etc the absence of HS2 would probably mean domestic flights still have a healthy level of custom with all the environmental issues that creates. This of course was in the days when HS2 was intended to be long enough route to be a highly viable alternative to domestic flights.

All this of course when the then leader of Brighton City Council (a Green councillor) seemed to think the best way to get to the COP26 conference in Glasgow on climate change was to fly there....because rail was unreliable.

 

[Sorcerer]

Interesting - as I thought they had a long standing opposition to HS2 as part of what I believe to be a muddled transport policy based on the idea that HS2 uses lots of energy and going slower is acceptable as a Green approach - but without commensurate policies to ban internal flights etc the absence of HS2 would probably mean domestic flights still have a healthy level of custom with all the environmental issues that creates. This of course was in the days when HS2 was intended to be long enough route to be a highly viable alternative to domestic flights.

All this of course when the then leader of Brighton City Council (a Green councillor) seemed to think the best way to get to the COP26 conference in Glasgow on climate change was to fly there....because rail was unreliable.

It could've been mentioned elsewhere since I only took a quick gander at the issues which interest me more than the others, but if it's not in the transport policy I don't see where else it would be relevant. Of course I am inclined to agree that it's interesting but then perhaps they believe the project will end up being cancelled in due course anyway or secretly recognise that a modal shift to high speed rail would be necessary for their flight ban policy. It's probably something the party is actually split over but isn't big enough to go public with.

 

[Enthusiast]

I watched Sunak`s Panaorma interview earlier and he was still banging on about tax cuts - he needs to realise that some people (like me) are quite comfortable with paying more tax as long as those who are on lower incomes and Public Services are properly funded.
( As a Civil Servant I earn £28k pa).

Perhaps, then, there should be a system developed where people who are happy to pay more than the minimum required could make additional voluntary payments.

The Lib Dems have proposed re-entry to the Single Market, which at least makes them a compelling alternative to Boring Labour who have decided the status quo is broadly fine and the regime just needs different management.

I haven't read it (I tend to keep away from the "fiction" section prior to a GE). Did they also perchance mention that such a move would also mean the restoration of freedom of movement?

 

[takno]

He had OnDigital.


Like me! Actually it was a great system, making Sky Sports available without a dish and engineers coming to set it all up. Pity they overstretched themselves by buying football rights for too high a price, which sent them under if I recall

Did he actually say he had on digital? I only ask because he was 18 when it launched, so it might basically be another wild and pointless Rishi lie.

 

[birchesgreen]

Perhaps, then, there should be a system developed where people who are happy to pay more than the minimum required could make additional voluntary payments.

There is one.

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps, then, there should be a system developed where people who are happy to pay more than the minimum required could make additional voluntary payments.

And let those that aren't enjoy the benefits without contributing?

 

[Howardh]

Did he actually say he had on digital? I only ask because he was 18 when it launched, so it might basically be another wild and pointless Rishi lie.

No - I made it up*! Therefore I immediately announce myself as a Conservative Party candidate!!

*Actually he may well have had for all I know, all he did was rule out "Sky (satellite)" and OnDigital was the alternative way, now there's, er, Now TV as Sky's on-line platform! Chances are if his family would have access to Indian satellite channels if available at the time in the UK (especially if interested in cricket). He didn't rule that out either!!

Shapps losing will cause 4 Portillo moments

Very good!!

 

[Thirteen]

The Greens are a bit deluded in regards to banning domestic flights. So if people want to visit Northern Ireland or Dublin, they'd need to get a mix of train and boat? Even Scotland takes ages by train and sometimes flying is the quickest and cheapest option,

 

[Gloster]

My feeling is that Sunak thinks, to the extent that is a considered answer rather than a fumbled ‘say something’ reply, that poor people spend all their time watching satellite TV, so by saying that he didn’t have Sky they will empathise with him and think he understands their problems. (I am not joking.) So far the other parties seem to have played it wisely: don’t shout out how you were even poorer in a thousand ways, just let the crassness of his comment simmer away in peoples’ minds.

 

[dosxuk]

*Actually he may well have had for all I know, all he did was rule out "Sky (satellite)" and OnDigital was the alternative way

When Sunak was a child, OnDigital didn't exist. Sky did. The alternatives to Sky prior to the launch of digital terrestrial television were the standard 4-5 analogue channels or cable.

 

[birchesgreen]

If only Rishi's parents had given up their avocados on toast and lattes instead, then he could have gone to his posh school and had Sky TV.

 

[Thirteen]

Sky would have been pretty expensive back then so if anything Mr and Mrs Sunak snr made the right decision not to get it.

 

[ChrisC]

So I guess the swing there is Lab to Lib Dem and Con to Reform.

I'd like the Lib Dems to do as well as possible, firstly they are the party which most closely aligns to my own beliefs and secondly it might convince Labour that we aren't all pro-Brexit anti-immigrationists and there are other political tendencies within the electorate.

That may be the case in some parts of the country, but I get the feeling that here in my part of the East Midlands it is very much the opposite.
Reform seem to be getting a lot of support from the traditional old fashioned working class Labour supporters especially in the ex mining communities. Many of them voted Conservative last time because of Boris and his Brexit promises. You only have to see and listen to the type of people who are supporting Lee Anderson in Ashfield.

On the other hand, the more the traditional Conservative voters of the moderate ‘one nation’ type would never vote Reform. Many of these people voted remain and most certainly would not vote for a Reform candidate. That‘s where I find myself, as someone who has mainly voted Conservative in the past but because of their attitude towards Europe now feel more aligned with the Lib Dems.

 

[WesternLancer]

The Greens are a bit deluded in regards to banning domestic flights. So if people want to visit Northern Ireland or Dublin, they'd need to get a mix of train and boat? Even Scotland takes ages by train and sometimes flying is the quickest and cheapest option,

well that's what the vast majority of people did in the 70s and 80s / early 90s and before (part from more wealthy business orientated travel) before low cost flight / deregulation

but the manifesto is actually pretty similar to the lib dems commitments - just ban flights where 3 hour train journeys exist not 2.5 hour as per lib dems manifesto.

Not really very Green at all actually.

If serious abut climate change / being green yes, you need to ban domestic flights IMHO - and most short haul flights eg to a lot of European destinations too. Or tax them so they are punitively expensive

 

[Russel]

Considering the vast damage that cars do to the environment and quality of life for everyone who lives around the places motorists drive in - which from the estimates I've seen considerably exceed the money paid in fuel duties, no, fuel duty probably isn't enough, and is currently set at such a low level that it amounts to a hidden subsidy given to motorists. That of course goes a long way to explain why so many people still choose to drive even when there are perfectly good alternatives.

This is the issue though, unless you live in a city such as London, Birmingham, Manchester etc, there simply isn't an alternative, trains are infrequent and expensive and buses are also infrequent and cannot be relied upon.

People simply do not have a choice other than to drive, so increasing fuel duty won't get people out of their cars, it'll just put them under more financial strain.

I live in Lichfield and work in Tamworth, if I was to use the bus or train, I'd be extending my 15 minute car journey into an hour and a half commute, is this an perfectly good alternative?

 

[Howardh]

well that's what the vast majority of people did in the 70s and 80s / early 90s and before (part from more wealthy business orientated travel) before low cost flight / deregulation

but the manifesto is actually pretty similar to the lib dems commitments - just ban flights where 3 hour train journeys exist not 2.5 hour as per lib dems manifesto.

Not really very Green at all actually.

If serious abut climate change / being green yes, you need to ban domestic flights IMHO - and most short haul flights eg to a lot of European destinations too. Or tax them so they are punitively expensive

I get the green issues, but if all short-haul flights to the near continent were banned and people wanted to get there quickly, the only viable alternative is Eurostar; so would it ever have the capacity to take all those "thrown off" short-haul flights? Would we need another tunnel or bridge?

Perhaps the future of air travel is going back to the past, airships powered by electric motors charged via renewable energy; no idea what speeds they could attain with today's technology, or even if they would be badly affected by poor weather, but if aircraft travel was restricted and someone wanted to travel between across the channel at wider points than Dover airships would appear to be a viable alternative to the slow ships?

 

[Thirteen]

Once electric planes becomes a commercial reality, banning short haul flights will be seen as a bit redundant.

 

[dosxuk]

Once electric planes becomes a commercial reality, banning short haul flights will be seen as a bit redundant.

Is that going to happen before, or after, we run out of kerosene? It's certainly not going to happen in the lifetime of the next parliament, and probably not in their leaders' either.

 

[WesternLancer]

I get the green issues, but if all short-haul flights to the near continent were banned and people wanted to get there quickly, the only viable alternative is Eurostar; so would it ever have the capacity to take all those "thrown off" short-haul flights? Would we need another tunnel or bridge?

Yes, I appreciate the point of course. Tho I suspect the existing tunnel has way more spare capacity (it's well underused by freight for example, compared with intended capacity at build).

But for the greens I would assume they would argue that it's tough luck if you want to get there quickly - compromises are needed in the interests of saving the planet. Why do people need to get there more quickly now than they could do in 1980 by ship and train for example, I think that is what they would say.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is the issue though, unless you live in a city such as London, Birmingham, Manchester etc, there simply isn't an alternative, trains are infrequent and expensive and buses are also infrequent and cannot be relied upon.

It's chicken and egg. Trains and buses are often infrequent or non-existent because the over the years the hidden subsidies given to motorists have caused people to drive (why wouldn't you when you get the benefits of driving and the taxpayer/everyone else picks up most of the costs), which means not enough people use the buses and trains to make them viable - hence Beeching etc.

People simply do not have a choice other than to drive, so increasing fuel duty won't get people out of their cars, it'll just put them under more financial strain.

I agree to the extent that if you suddenly raised fuel duties to economically fair levels overnight it wouldn't work - it would be too sudden a change and public transport networks wouldn't be able to cope. But that's not a reason not to aim to so do over a long period - say, 20 years, which would give time for people to adjust and bus/train networks to adapt as more people use them.

I live in Lichfield and work in Tamworth, if I was to use the bus or train, I'd be extending my 15 minute car journey into an hour and a half commute, is this an perfectly good alternative?

I didn't say that every car journey had a viable alternative and maybe your one doesn't. But lots do. Here in London I have friends who'll choose to drive half a mile down the road to get a pizza (perfectly walkable) or will drive to destinations where there is a direct bus or train every 10 minutes.

 

[nw1]

Perhaps, then, there should be a system developed where people who are happy to pay more than the minimum required could make additional voluntary payments

Because you'd get less total tax income as a result, due to not everyone wishing to make these extra contributions. Less tax income means less money for public services means spending cuts means worse public services.

I haven't read it (I tend to keep away from the "fiction" section prior to a GE). Did they also perchance mention that such a move would also mean the restoration of freedom of movement?

Not everyone shares your objection about re-entering the single market. The Lib Dems are appealing to those who have no such objection. If you don't want to re-enter it, go ahead and vote for someone other than Lib Dems.

 

[Russel]

It's chicken and egg. Trains and buses are often infrequent or non-existent because the over the years the hidden subsidies given to motorists have caused people to drive (why wouldn't you when you get the benefits of driving and the taxpayer/everyone else picks up most of the costs), which means not enough people use the buses and trains to make them viable - hence Beeching etc.

I pay road tax, insurance, the initial cost of the car, I pay for the fuel I put in it, the tax payer is hardly picking up most of the costs are they?

If fuel duty increased tomorrow, do you honestly think the extra money would go towards public transport? Of course it wouldn't, our current government have no interest in public transport, it would get swallowed up by whatever white elephant they are currently obsessed with, currently flights to Rwanda...

I didn't say that every car journey had a viable alternative and maybe your one doesn't. But lots do. Here in London I have friends who'll choose to drive half a mile down the road to get a pizza (perfectly walkable) or will drive to destinations where there is a direct bus or train every 10 minutes.

And here we have the problem, you're viewing the rest of the country in the same way you view London, you need to spend a few week living outside of London to realize what you're saying is simply wrong, most people living in provincial towns do not have the option to not use the car.

 

[Donny Dave]

I have just discovered today that there is an independent candidate who is running in at least 11 different constituencies in the upcoming election. Does anyone know if the rules have changed because i was under the impression that you can only run in one constituency.

The police are now investigating this.

Police say they are aware an internet prankster has seemingly been registered to stand as a general election candidate in multiple constituencies.

The name of YouTuber Niko Omilana, who stood in the London mayoral election three years ago, is on the ballot as an independent in at least 11 constituencies.

YouTuber Niko Omilana named as candidate in 11 constituencies

Police say they are aware Niko Omilana's name is listed in multiple constituencies.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[X-City-WM]

I live in Lichfield and work in Tamworth, if I was to use the bus or train, I'd be extending my 15 minute car journey into an hour and a half commute, is this an perfectly good alternative?

I live just a few miles south of there. The X65 bus from Lichfield to Tamworth takes 20 minutes. The train from Lichfield Trent Valley to Tamworth (towards Euston) takes 6 minutes.

We find the local public transport infrastructure so good that we sold our car two years ago and haven’t regretted it at all. Admittedly, we tend to travel towards Brum and neighbouring towns.

Having previously lived in Ross-on-Wye, I do understand how hard it can be to get about in more rural areas where there isn’t much public transport.

 

[The Ham]

And here we have the problem, you're viewing the rest of the country in the same way you view London, you need to spend a few week living outside of London to realize what you're saying is simply wrong, most people living in provincial towns do not have the option to not use the car.

I love outside of London, in fact I live in a rural settlement (i.e. population of less than 10,000) and the majority of my trips are by walking or public transport (and have been for at least the last decade).

Yes, I'm fortunate in that the local station has 2tph, I work near where I live, there's a decent supermarket which is almost as quick to walk to as it is to drive to and there's a decent amount of facilities which shows a good selection of activities for children and adults alike. Whilst the local secondary school isn't in the settlement, it's beyond 3 miles so free bus travel is provided.

Conversely, there's people who live closer to the local primary school than me and my kids do (where we walk) who drive. For a time there was a family who we saw, who drove the 450m to school. Even though it was often faster for us to walk it than it was for them to drive and the parent was returning home (I know as we'd walk past as they were getting into the car, only for them to overtake us before we overtook then again as they were held up in traffic, parking or getting out of the car.

Cars are generally fairly expensive, costing over £3,800 a year, of which fuel costs are around £900 a year, so even increasing fuel duty by 20% would actually only put that average cost to by about £60, which would be a 1.5% increase in costs. That compares with the average cost increase over the last 4 years of around 19% (so an average of 4.5% per year).

Certainly there would be people who would struggle if their fuel costs were to rise by £60, however they would only happen if fuel duty jumped up by 20% within a year.

 

[Russel]

I live just a few miles south of there. The X65 bus from Lichfield to Tamworth takes 20 minutes. The train from Lichfield Trent Valley to Tamworth (towards Euston) takes 6 minutes.

Yes, the journey times themselves aren't an issue, however as I don't live and work at the bus/train stations, I still need to take into account getting to and from them, to use the X65 would require a bus into Lichfield then a bus to my destination in Tamworth, same with the train, so a 20 minute bus or 6 minute train journey soon become much longer.

In the time it would take me to reach Lichfield Trent Valley station, I could be half way to work in the car...

I have a family/home life, I'm not adding on an extra hour in each direction onto my commute just to use public transport.

 

[Falcon1200]

This is an extreme policy which feels almost akin to citizenship being stripped of people, such is the loss of rights and dignity which will happen.

Time for a Self-ID law and to knock this on the head once and for all.

Thus resulting in more situations like that in Scotland, where a trans woman who had as a man sexually assaulted two women was accommodated in a woman's prison, until even the SNP realised that was a nonsense too far. There should be utmost sympathy for those born into the wrong body but this cannot come at the expense of others; TBH I am not sure how or where the line should be drawn, as to who can use which facilities.

 

[AlterEgo]

Thus resulting in more situations like that in Scotland, where a trans woman who had as a man sexually assaulted two women was accommodated in a woman's prison, until even the SNP realised that was a nonsense too far. There should be utmost sympathy for those born into the wrong body but this cannot come at the expense of others; TBH I am not sure how or where the line should be drawn, as to who can use which facilities.

Do you think a white person who committed a race bombing to kill black and brown people should be held in a whites-only jail? We don't do that at the moment.