Why does this current U.K. Government hate rail so much.

[Falcon1200]

By agreeing to a pay increase they increase pay for every year from now until the end of the world.

And show that industrial action is the way to obtain higher pay increases.

 

[jagardner1984]

In some degree of fairness - the whole industry has worked on the basis of patterns.

We deliver X improvement, therefore demand is up Y %, therefore we have a capacity problem by Z year, so we need to add capacity.

COVID placed a huge spanner in the works, and no-one really understands the patterns of where demand will go next, or at what speed.

The sad truth, as demonstrated amply by the “40 new hospitals by 2030” tortuous interviews with Steve Barclay yesterday; is that long term is really not a factor in our current politics. Everyone knows those won’t be built, there is some word twisting about what actually counts as a new hospital, and some others that are held up with acrow props we have decided are now a problem and need replacing.

So building curves, passing loops, resignalling, that will deliver marginal improvements to the next government of an opposing party are just not really even part of the discourse - with the possible exception of HS2 - which is fiercely opposed primarily by their own side.

If you order some in production units on day 1 of your government, there is a fair chance you’ll get to cut a ribbon before the next election, and some commuters will feel they got a nice new train when they go to the polling booth.

If you order some station upgrades, put some new glass and steel over what is there - there is a chance you’ll get your photo looking gleefully across the concourse towards Costa.

The big picture stuff, the arguments that need to be made for mass electrification, capacity improvements on the main lines, the need to get passengers out of the skies and lorries off the road, all that is frankly too difficult for the calibre of politician we have today.

The overwhelming word is STRATEGY. And my goodness we need some.

 

[RT4038]

The big picture stuff, the arguments that need to be made for mass electrification, capacity improvements on the main lines, the need to get passengers out of the skies and lorries off the road, all that is frankly too difficult for the calibre of politician we have today.

The overwhelming word is STRATEGY. And my goodness we need some.

I don't think that the arguments of the big picture stuff have ever been started, let alone been won by the railway.

It is all very well blaming the calibre of politicians today, (as if politicians previously were of a better calibre), but the polarisation of our politics is not really conducive to long term strategy, and never really has been.

 

[Master29]

Half that time was under a Labour Government?

The railway has been fundamentally unable to modernise itself for 25 years, you can't blame all that on the post 2010 Governments.

The political decisions in the IEP programme are the only reason we have a functioning intercity railway service as it is!

If the government had not insisted on bi mode trains where would be when the Great Western modernisation programme fell to pieces due to NR's fundamental inability to deliver?

50 year old HSTs struggling on whilst hundreds of shiny EMU carriages sit in sidings unable to go anywhere.

No, much less than half that time but I never said Labour has no culpability but compared to the Tories it's much less.

What is "if we never had the IET programme we wouldn't have had supposed to mean" specifically? We would have had new trains whatever so a moot point as it should have been done years before. The HST was only supposed to be an interim measure or has that escaped so many.

We still do have 50 year old HST's on the network by the way.

I don't think that the arguments of the big picture stuff have ever been started, let alone been won by the railway.

It is all very well blaming the calibre of politicians today, (as if politicians previously were of a better calibre), but the polarisation of our politics is not really conducive to long term strategy, and never really has been.

Then it should be because you contradict yourself in one sentence by saying it's not the fault of politicians because the way they operate which is precisely why they are at fault.

 

[HSTEd]

No, much less than half that time but I never said Labour has no culpability but compared to the Tories it's much less.

1998-2023 (the last 25 years) has seen 12 years of Labour government, 5 years of Coalition Government and 8 years of Conservative Government.

I wouldn't define 12 as much less than half of 25 myself.

What is "if we never had the IET programme we wouldn't have had supposed to mean" specifically? We would have had new trains whatever so a moot point as it should have been done years before. The HST was only supposed to be an interim measure or has that escaped so many.

We would have had electric new trains that were unable to move because the electrification programme collapsed. Or we would be stuck with pure diesel Voyagers until at least midcentury.

We still do have 50 year old HST's on the network by the way.

Excluding a handful of soon to be axed short HSTs on GWR and the New MEasurement Train, the only HSTs left are under the control of the devolved administration in Scotland and you can't really hold those against the Westminster Government.

 

[Master29]

1998-2023 (the last 25 years) has seen 12 years of Labour government, 5 years of Coalition Government and 8 years of Conservative Government.

I wouldn't define 12 as much less than half of 25 myself.

Those are your figures and the coalition government is meaningless.

We would have had electric new trains that were unable to move because the electrification programme collapsed. Or we would be stuck with pure diesel Voyagers until at least midcentury.

Excluding a handful of soon to be axed short HSTs on GWR and the New MEasurement Train, the only HSTs left are under the control of the devolved administration in Scotland and you can't really hold those against the Westminster Government.

You forget the handful of XC HST's but I`m being pedantic. The rest of your statement is exactly what I mean with neglected railways. It should have been done years ago and that is down to whoever in Westminster.....Or do the Mail or Express omit to mention this?

 

[RT4038]

Then it should be because you contradict yourself in one sentence by saying it's not the fault of politicians because the way they operate which is precisely why they are at fault.

I think you in mis-interpreting - nowhere have I said that politicians have no fault, but they are operating in a system with a polarity of views, and the electorate does little to change that (by voting for other candidates), so it would be reasonable to assume a similar polarity in the public at large. This polarity does nothing for long term strategy.

 

[yorksrob]

I think you in mis-interpreting - nowhere have I said that politicians have no fault, but they are operating in a system with a polarity of views, and the electorate does little to change that (by voting for other candidates), so it would be reasonable to assume a similar polarity in the public at large. This polarity does nothing for long term strategy.

There isn't quite such a polarity amongst the public at large. The voting system tends to channel them into binary voting.

 

[RT4038]

There isn't quite such a polarity amongst the public at large. The voting system tends to channel them into binary voting.

Probably!

 

[Master29]

There isn't quite such a polarity amongst the public at large. The voting system tends to channel them into binary voting.

Precisely, which is a very large part of the problem.

 

[jagardner1984]

Quite an interesting comment from a friend of mine the other night.

History shows the incumbent party is unlikely to ever change the voting system.

The voting system here will most likely produce one of two leading parties - in some cases in minority / coalition.

Lots of waffle about “strong, stable” government from both sides.

The status quo continues.

It’s a shame really.

On a host of public policy matters - not just the railway - imagination and a real rethink is most desperately required.

 

[RT4038]

Quite an interesting comment from a friend of mine the other night.

History shows the incumbent party is unlikely to ever change the voting system.

The voting system here will most likely produce one of two leading parties - in some cases in minority / coalition.

Lots of waffle about “strong, stable” government from both sides.

The status quo continues.

It’s a shame really.

On a host of public policy matters - not just the railway - imagination and a real rethink is most desperately required.

I daresay that this is being said by some people in most countries of the world - if you have a system which most likely produces one of two leading parties, then a voting system is wanted that dilutes that. If you have a voting system that produces lots of parties that have to horse trade into coalitions, then a strong and stable two party system is desired. The system that an individual wants is the one that gets the party/coalition elected mostly that coincides with the most of their views!

 

[zwk500]

I daresay that this is being said by some people in most countries of the world - if you have a system which most likely produces one of two leading parties, then a voting system is wanted that dilutes that. If you have a voting system that produces lots of parties that have to horse trade into coalitions, then a strong and stable two party system is desired. The system that an individual wants is the one that gets the party/coalition elected mostly that coincides with the most of their views!

Much of Europe has some form of PR that produces regular coalitions. While I've seen lots of commentary and polling that suggests they'd prefer the horse-trading to be done with quicker, I've seen very little suggesting anybody wants to move to a US or UK based Two-party system.
As you say, people want a system that aligns with their views (interests) getting into power most often. The advantage of a system that promotes multi-party government is it means you've got a lot more chance to have some form of representation in government. Of course there are non-partisan reasons for choosing certain systems as well - UK polling regularly returns high results for the simplicity of FPTP and the constituency-MP connection for sticking with the system as it is, regardless of the fact that if you live in certain seats you may as well not vote for all the difference it makes.

 

[jagardner1984]

indeed - if for example I was a staunch Green voter (I’m not, but nearly a million people, over 2.5% of the electorate were in 2019) - then I am unlikely to see any real representation in my entire lifetime.

2.5% of the vote would equate to 16 MPs. Not one.

 

[stuu]

indeed - if for example I was a staunch Green voter (I’m not, but nearly a million people, over 2.5% of the electorate were in 2019) - then I am unlikely to see any real representation in my entire lifetime.

2.5% of the vote would equate to 16 MPs. Not one.

Yes, exactly, the current system is shockingly undemocratic. A system which gives a massive majority of seats for less than a majority of votes is just wrong, whichever party it benefits

 

[zwk500]

indeed - if for example I was a staunch Green voter (I’m not, but nearly a million people, over 2.5% of the electorate were in 2019) - then I am unlikely to see any real representation in my entire lifetime.

2.5% of the vote would equate to 16 MPs. Not one.

Indeed, and the Green vote is probably suppressed for this exact reason, as voters decide to vote tactically or just not vote.

Yes, exactly, the current system is shockingly undemocratic. A system which gives a massive majority of seats for less than a majority of votes is just wrong, whichever party it benefits

Yes, although beware of going too far the other way and creating ungovernable combinations representatives. I personally would favour multi-member regional voting with STV or similar.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Quite an interesting comment from a friend of mine the other night.
History shows the incumbent party is unlikely to ever change the voting system.
The voting system here will most likely produce one of two leading parties - in some cases in minority / coalition.
Lots of waffle about “strong, stable” government from both sides.
The status quo continues.
It’s a shame really.
On a host of public policy matters - not just the railway - imagination and a real rethink is most desperately required.

Indeed. Politicians think in 5 year cycles if that. Trust me in the USA it is even worse.

Long term strategy and UK politics are not happy bedfellows unfortunately.

 

[Cowley]

We’re feeling that 12 pages in, this thread has now run its course.

Thanks everyone