Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: corium on May 23, 2014, 02:38:02 PM
-
Marple North - results
Election Candidate Party Votes %
Geoff Abell Liberal Democrats 1580 37% Elected
Annette Claire Finnie Conservative Party 1248 29% Not elected
Chelsea Helen Smith UK Independence Party 539 13% Not elected
David Edward Rowbottom Labour Party 538 13% Not elected
Maggie Preston Green Party 328 8% Not elected
-
Marple South - results
Election Candidate Party Votes %
Susan Ingham Liberal Democrats 1535 38% Elected
Bev Morley-Scott Conservative Party 950 23% Not elected
Darran John Palmer UK Independence Party 873 22% Not elected
Kevin Dolan Labour Party 446 11% Not elected
Graham Douglas Reid Green Party 254 6% Not elected
-
Well done Lib Dems.
Perhaps the most interesting figure there is UKIP's 22% in Marple South, just 1% point behind the Tories! :o
-
This leaves Stockport as:
Liberal Democrat 28 (-3)
Labour 22 (+2)
Conservative 10 (+1)
Residents Association 3 (0)
Unless there's a Lab-Con coalition (unlikely) then they'll have to get dealing. At least they're used to it, unlike the national government.
The Marple South result is interesting. I suspect that UKIP pulled in votes from both the Cons and from Labour. Marple South is less affluent than Marple North and if we look around the country, Labour lost some of their core votes to UKIP as well as the more generally accepted point of view that it would be disenchanted Conservative voters who would vote for them. If UKIP hadn't stood in Marple South I suspect that the Conservatives might have taken the seat from the Lib Dems.
-
This is not correct Howard it is in fact
Lib Dem - 1 Lost Hazel Grove and Stepping Hill Gained Offerton
Con No Change Lost 2 Heatons North and Offerton and Gained Hazel Grove and Stepping Hill
Labour + 1 Heatons North
Thus
LD 28
Lab 22
Con 10
Heald Green Inds 3
The situation is exactly the same as pre 2012 and it is likely that the two opposition parties will seek the responsibility on control.
I can't help but remind Dave and Simone of their forcaste of a LD defeat in Manor. In fact the majority was 225 up from24.
-
Cllr Derbyshire was re-elected LD Group leader this evening and probably Council Leader. Ian Roberts from Cheadle and Gatley elected as Deputy Leader.
-
The situation is exactly the same as pre 2012 and it is likely that the two opposition parties will seek the responsibility on control.
Sorry that should have been "it is Unlikely that the two opposition parties will seek the responsibility of control"
-
This is not correct Howard it is in fact
Lib Dem - 1 Lost Hazel Grove and Stepping Hill Gained Offerton
Con No Change Lost 2 Heatons North and Offerton and Gained Hazel Grove and Stepping Hill
Labour + 1 Heatons North
Thank you, wheels. Perhaps you should notify the BBC of your numbers:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/councils/E08000007 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/councils/E08000007)
-
abell voted in with just 37% of the vote. 63% didn`t vote for him.
ingham voted in with just 38% of the vote, 62% didn`t vote for her.
Just over 8000 people bothered to vote combined in marple north and south, what about the 15000 who couldn`t be bothered to get off their lazy backsides and put an X on 2 ballot papers.
-
Welcome to the first past the post system. We had our chance to make the first steps towards proportional representation in the referendum and the country chose not to endorse it.
Perhaps you'll get more satisfaction from the Euro elections which do use the PR system.
On your point on the 15,000 who didn't vote; perhaps some of them were under 18 and therefore ineligible to vote.
-
Thank you, wheels. Perhaps you should notify the BBC of your numbers:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/councils/E08000007 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/councils/E08000007)
The BBC have been made aware of this error
-
abell voted in with just 37% of the vote. 63% didn`t vote for him.
ingham voted in with just 38% of the vote, 62% didn`t vote for her.
Just over 8000 people bothered to vote combined in Marple north and south, what about the 15000 who couldn`t be bothered to get off their lazy backsides and put an X on 2 ballot papers.
Whether it is down to lazy backsides or not, I'd also like to know why they didn't vote. It is quite curious.
-
Welcome to the first past the post system. We had our chance to make the first steps towards proportional representation in the referendum and the country chose not to endorse it.
Perhaps you'll get more satisfaction from the Euro elections which do use the PR system.
Hear hear, Howard. A huge opportunity missed, predictably the scaremongers won the day.
It would have been the biggest shake up in electoral politics since 1918 which was, not coincidentally, the first election where Labour became a big force in Britain.
-
Of course all the none voters could have voted but the percentages could well have remained the same. So Geoff Abell could still have won with a minority 37% such is the nature of the system. As Howard says a real opportunity was thrown away a couple of years ago to get rid of this system.
-
I can't help but remind Dave and Simone of their forcaste of a LD defeat in Manor.
I can't help but point out to wheels that I forecast no such thing!
-
abell voted in with just 37% of the vote. 63% didn`t vote for him.
ingham voted in with just 38% of the vote, 62% didn`t vote for her.
By Local Election standards those figures are not bad - indeed, they are both greater than the overall Tory vote at the 2010 General Election (36.1%)!
-
I stumbled across an analysis of the Stockport result on the MEN website: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/live---local-elections-2014-7149923#comments
It's interesting that Labour got the biggest share of the vote (29%), but the Lib Dems won more seats. Also that UKIP polled a sizeable 13% of the vote. My hunch is that they probably got most of those from Labour and the Tories, rather than the Lib Dems. If so, the Lib Dem success in Stockport, as well as being a just reward for the hard work that their people put in at elections, could also have been helped by Tory and Labour voters defecting to UKIP.
-
Whilst the Lib Dem machine and organisation is certainly better than better than the others I think Dave their success is more to do with year round activity. The old adage "They only appear at election time" can certainly be levied at the other parties in Marple. Also people see through the false claims of the other parties. The claim by the Marple North Tory to have campaigned successfully to achieved a Council Tax freeze springs to mind when no one who makes such decisions had ever heard of her.
-
Thanks Wheels, polite reminder accepted.
Wheels is right (AT LEAST IN MARPLE) there is always a Lib Dem presence whereas we only hear of the opposition (all of em') at election time. I'm always seeing or hearing of the LD Councillors but we don't even know the name of any of the opposition candidates until the election comes around and then its often a different name from the previous year.
There is a strong Lib Dem core vote at local elections in Marple (both North and South) and any other party having aspirations will first have to find a way to overcome that - and it won't be easy. If the Lib Dems put a donkey up it would still attract the core vote. There are also Labour supporters in Marple who wouldn't dream of voting anything other than Labour nationally but they vote Lib Dem in locals to keep the Tories out. They are as much a part of the core as the Lib Dems themselves
Labour have got no chance in Marple and the only way Conservatives or UKIP have got is if they form an alliance - which they may do next year although it is doubtful with it being a General Election where they will both be keen increase their party share of the vote. What might happen is that UKIP may emerge as second but that's only pushing votes between the two right wing parties. The LD's will still have their core.
Thinking about it, do we want a bunch of right wing Councillors in Marple ? Look what they've done to Bramhall. They've absolutely wrecked the place in less than 20 years.
No, I think that Marple will remain Lib Dem territory for quite some time yet.
-
Look what [the Tories] have done to Bramhall. They've absolutely wrecked the place in less than 20 years.
An interesting observation from Simone - tell us more!
-
Well you will have noted Simone that the Tories are now starting to be challenged in Bramhall South.
-
abell voted in with just 37% of the vote. 63% didn`t vote for him.
ingham voted in with just 38% of the vote, 62% didn`t vote for her.
Just over 8000 people bothered to vote combined in marple north and south, what about the 15000 who couldn`t be bothered to get off their lazy backsides and put an X on 2 ballot papers.
Some of us, despite filling in the electoral register form each year for the last 3 didn't get a vote. I'm not on the register, apparently, so the absence of my vote has nothing to do with my lazy backside.
-
Some of us, despite filling in the electoral register form each year for the last 3 didn't get a vote. I'm not on the register, apparently, so the absence of my vote has nothing to do with my lazy backside.
Well rather than moan why don't you check you entitled while the register is compiled as of15th Oct each year you are entitled to be added any time up until about a month before the election. Get it sorted on Tuesday its your responsibility no one elses
-
Well rather than moan why don't you check you entitled while the register is compiled as of 15th Oct each year you are entitled to be added any time up until about a month before the election. Get it sorted on Tuesday its your responsibility no one elses
One assumes, possibly foolishly, that filling in the form and returning it would be enough. It has worked in every other place I've lived.
Are you suggesting that everyone who is of voting age in the Stockport area should check the register every year? SMBC staff would be tearing out their hair!
-
No I am not suggesting that but if it had happened to me for three years as you claim I think I might have picked up the phone and done something about it rather than just moaning about it
-
Wheels,
Obviously you haven't tried to phone the Council in the last twelve months or you wouldn't be suggesting it to somebody else as a practical course of action.
-
Wheels,
Obviously you haven't tried to phone the Council in the last twelve months or you wouldn't be suggesting it to somebody else as a practical course of action.
Your correct Simone, it's probably because I find the services so outstanding I would never feel the need to complain.
Anyway I would communicate with the council in a different way
-
Con No Change Lost 2 Heatons North and Offerton and Gained Hazel Grove and Stepping Hill
Labour + 1 Heatons North
THe Heatons must have gone really downhill to end up with all Labour councillors. I've lived in Heatons as well as other places accross the country and can say I've never lived in an area deprived enough (apart from being a student in Newcastle) to have a labour local councillor.
-
A lot of the big houses in the Heatons that used to accommodate professionals and their families have now been turned into flats/ bedsits and now accommodate people who vote Labour.
-
A lot of the big houses in the Heatons that used to accommodate professionals and their families have now been turned into flats/ bedsits and now accommodate people who vote Labour.
Third time of posting a reply - I think I know the type of labour voter you are referring to. ;)
-
SimoneSaffron states
'If the Lib Dems put a donkey up it would still attract the core vote'.
I do not agree. I have not voted for the Lib Dems since the coalition with the Conservatives resulting in swingeing cuts in provision of local authority services but seven years as an SMBC employee in a post which involved a lot of interaction with Councillors throughout the Borough provided a valuable insight into which Councillors worked hard to solve constituents' problems. The LibDem local councilors always seemed to me to work incredibly hard for their constituents, full stop. The main reason that existing LibDem Councillors have been re-elected is definitely not the fact that they represent the LibDem Party: it is because over the years a huge number of people have complained to their LibDem Councillor about a hole in the road, an un-emptied dustbin, a faulty street light, a problem at a local school etc, etc, etc and they have then seen action as a result of intervention by the Councillor. A large proportion of these people may well not be happy with the current situation or with the LibDems but assistance at some time during the last few years led to them going to the voting booth. For many it is loyalty to individual Councillors that has led to re-election - not that they represent the LibDem Party.
-
SimoneSaffron states
'If the Lib Dems put a donkey up it would still attract the core vote'.
I do not agree. I have not voted for the Lib Dems since the coalition with the Conservatives resulting in swingeing cuts in provision of local authority services but seven years as an SMBC employee in a post which involved a lot of interaction with Councillors throughout the Borough provided a valuable insight into which Councillors worked hard to solve constituents' problems. The LibDem local councilors always seemed to me to work incredibly hard for their constituents, full stop. The main reason that existing LibDem Councillors have been re-elected is definitely not the fact that they represent the LibDem Party: it is because over the years a huge number of people have complained to their LibDem Councillor about a hole in the road, an un-emptied dustbin, a faulty street light, a problem at a local school etc, etc, etc and they have then seen action as a result of intervention by the Councillor. A large proportion of these people may well not be happy with the current situation or with the LibDems but assistance at some time during the last few years led to them going to the voting booth. For many it is loyalty to individual Councillors that has led to re-election - not that they represent the LibDem Party.
I am sure that you are right in what you say Rambler but I'm equally sure that I am right too in what I say. Councillor intervention in Marple is always going to be Lib Dem because that's exactly what all our Councillors are. We have a newly elected Councillor in Marple. I am not suggesting in any way he's not a good man for the job but I'd never heard of him until the recent election. There can't be any loyalty for his interventions because before he was elected he hadn't made any. So why did he win the election? The answer is HE didn't the party did. The core vote that I referred to turned out for the party. I'm not saying that everybody who votes Lib Dem votes for the party but there is most definitely a core " Donkey" vote.
As you indicate in your post national and local are different. It will be interesting to see what happens in next years elections as there will be a new Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate but presumably the same old local Councillors.
-
It will be interesting to see what happens in next years elections as there will be a new Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate but presumably the same old local Councillors.
Indeed, it will be very interesting! So let's amuse ourselves with a spot of forecasting.
First, a bit of background. Sir Andrew Stunell was first elected in 1997, and has been re-elected at four successive elections since then. In 1997 he won 54% of the vote (i.e. of those who actually voted). Since then his majority has fallen slightly at each election, and at the most recent election in 2010 he had 49% of the vote.
At all four elections, the Tory candidate came second, but the share of the vote has shown no clear trend, hovering around 30%, but rising to 34% In 2010.
Labour have come a poor third each time, with between 12% and 17% of the vote.
Interestingly, UKIP have steadily increased their vote, albeit from a very low start: they won a mere 0.5% of the vote in 1997, but by 2010 this had increased tenfold, to over 5%.
All this is from Wikipedia, of course. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Grove_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
So here's a prediction based on the above, along with two further assumptions:
1. Sir Andrew attracted a degree of 'loyalty factor' - he seems to have been regarded as a decent and hardworking constituency MP. A new candidate will not benefit from anything like that, of course.
2. There will be in Hazel Grove, as everywhere else, a fall in support for the LibDems because of their participation in the Tory-led Coalition.
On that basis, I'll speculate that the % of the vote in Hazel Grove next year might divide up roughly as follows:
LibDem: 40%
Tory: 25%
Labour: 22%
UKIP: 13%
So my guess, for what it's worth (i.e. no more than anyone else's guess) is that the LibDems will hold this seat with a reduced majority, losing a significant number of votes to Labour, while a few Tory and Labour voters will have defected to UKIP.
-
It's a reasonable forecast Dave, based on mathematics and logic.
I think though that there is potential for an upset here. The incumbents are obviously favourites and the Lib Dems must consider Hazel Grove one of their fortress seats and it depends on a few things happening together but its mainly to do with the candidates. The Conservative candidate is a local man born and bred in Hazel Grove. He's currently a local Councillor and I think that he's a local Schoolteacher so he's got local roots and he's come up through the ranks. The Lib Dem candidate has no connection at all to the area and nobody seems to know where she comes from and how she got here. That could be important.
Taking Hazel Grove at local level it's hard to read. In the local wards that make up the Parliamentary Constituency I.E. Hazel Grove, Offerton and both Marple wards, the following happened;
Hazel Grove: Taken from LD by CON.
Offerton: Taken by LD from CON.
Marple: Both seats held by LD.
I can't see Marple being anything but LD but as the saying goes 'a year is a long time in politics.'
Does anybody know who the local candidates standing for Marple Wards are next year ?
-
It's a reasonable forecast Dave, based on mathematics and logic.
I think though that there is potential for an upset here. The incumbents are obviously favourites and the Lib Dems must consider Hazel Grove one of their fortress seats and it depends on a few things happening together but its mainly to do with the candidates. The Conservative candidate is a local man born and bred in Hazel Grove. He's currently a local Councillor and I think that he's a local Schoolteacher so he's got local roots and he's come up through the ranks. The Lib Dem candidate has no connection at all to the area and nobody seems to know where she comes from and how she got here. That could be important.
Taking Hazel Grove at local level it's hard to read. In the local wards that make up the Parliamentary Constituency I.E. Hazel Grove, Offerton and both Marple wards, the following happened;
Hazel Grove: Taken from LD by CON.
Offerton: Taken by LD from CON.
Marple: Both seats held by LD.
I can't see Marple being anything but LD but as the saying goes 'a year is a long time in politics.'
Does anybody know who the local candidates standing for Marple Wards are next year ?
Well I could play this game and give you my forcasts as well. First of all I do agree incumbency is a important factor. However lets not forget that Stunell had no background in the constituency prior to winning it and was a living elsewhere when selected. Other than a rented house in Hibbert Lane he was not living here before he won. Lisa Smart has however been permanently living here for over two years.
The Tory candidate is not a teacher but is a teaching assistant and is not regarded as a serious candidate by many in the Town Hall.
I suspect Dave's numbers might well be pretty near the mark. Individuals it is said can put on about 1000 votes the rest all comes from the party machine and its clear to everyone who has the best machine.
Much more fun to play with who's going to win which wards next May.
-
Well I could play this game and give you my forcasts as well. First of all I do agree incumbency is a important factor. However lets not forget that Stunell had no background in the constituency prior to winning it and was a living elsewhere when selected. Other than a rented house in Hibbert Lane he was not living here before he won. Lisa Smart has however been permanently living here for over two years.
The Tory candidate is not a teacher but is a teaching assistant and is not regarded as a serious candidate by many in the Town Hall.
I suspect Dave's numbers might well be pretty near the mark. Individuals it is said can put on about 1000 votes the rest all comes from the party machine and its clear to everyone who has the best machine.
Much more fun to play with who's going to win which wards next May.
If you've got the best party machine then why did you lose two local wards where you were incumbent in the recent election?
If you've got the best party machine why have you gone from 30 plus Councillors in Manchester to wipeout in the space of three years?
Anyway Wheels you've got inside information which we don't have so who is going to win the ward seats next year?
Are we ever going to be free from this LibDem stranglehold in Marple?
-
Much more fun to play with who's going to win which wards next May.
If you've got the best party machine then why did you lose two local wards where you were incumbent in the recent election?
Because the machine had slipped in those ward. The point I was making was that party machines win elections not personalities of policies
If you've got the best party machine why have you gone from 30 plus Councillors in Manchester to wipeout in the space of three years?
I thought that even extending my thoughts to Stockport in a Marple web site was risky, but as you raised it its an easy one to answer Labour have a better machine in Manchester. End off.
Are we ever going to be free from this LibDem stranglehold in Marple?
I hope not although I would be happy to see some of the individuals changed.
-
SimoneSaffron states
'If the Lib Dems put a donkey up it would still attract the core vote'.
I do not agree. I have not voted for the Lib Dems since the coalition with the Conservatives resulting in swingeing cuts in provision of local authority services but seven years as an SMBC employee in a post which involved a lot of interaction with Councillors throughout the Borough provided a valuable insight into which Councillors worked hard to solve constituents' problems. The LibDem local councilors always seemed to me to work incredibly hard for their constituents, full stop. The main reason that existing LibDem Councillors have been re-elected is definitely not the fact that they represent the LibDem Party: it is because over the years a huge number of people have complained to their LibDem Councillor about a hole in the road, an un-emptied dustbin, a faulty street light, a problem at a local school etc, etc, etc and they have then seen action as a result of intervention by the Councillor. A large proportion of these people may well not be happy with the current situation or with the LibDems but assistance at some time during the last few years led to them going to the voting booth. For many it is loyalty to individual Councillors that has led to re-election - not that they represent the LibDem Party.
It is often the case that people vote for the party they always vote for or whoever puts the best spin on a situation.
I don't always vote for LD but have been impressed with their performance in coalition and it's far better than the in-fighting, egos and rank economic incompetence we've seen in the previous national government.
That said, I wish we took the politics out of local govt, we see in Manchester they want their public to feel the effect of cuts so they cut budgets for libraries, swimming pools etc but maintain all the hey nonny-nonny roles within the council and throw a 1/2m concert for minor local celebs, local councillors and Richard leese' hangers on. there it's all about making the coalition look bad because they know a Labour council can sail the council tax-payer down the river and still get elected.
-
Indeed, it will be very interesting! So let's amuse ourselves with a spot of forecasting.
First, a bit of background. Sir Andrew Stunell was first elected in 1997, and has been re-elected at four successive elections since then. In 1997 he won 54% of the vote (i.e. of those who actually voted). Since then his majority has fallen slightly at each election, and at the most recent election in 2010 he had 49% of the vote.
At all four elections, the Tory candidate came second, but the share of the vote has shown no clear trend, hovering around 30%, but rising to 34% In 2010.
Labour have come a poor third each time, with between 12% and 17% of the vote.
Interestingly, UKIP have steadily increased their vote, albeit from a very low start: they won a mere 0.5% of the vote in 1997, but by 2010 this had increased tenfold, to over 5%.
All this is from Wikipedia, of course. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Grove_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
So here's a prediction based on the above, along with two further assumptions:
1. Sir Andrew attracted a degree of 'loyalty factor' - he seems to have been regarded as a decent and hardworking constituency MP. A new candidate will not benefit from anything like that, of course.
2. There will be in Hazel Grove, as everywhere else, a fall in support for the LibDems because of their participation in the Tory-led Coalition.
On that basis, I'll speculate that the % of the vote in Hazel Grove next year might divide up roughly as follows:
LibDem: 40%
Tory: 25%
Labour: 22%
UKIP: 13%
So my guess, for what it's worth (i.e. no more than anyone else's guess) is that the LibDems will hold this seat with a reduced majority, losing a significant number of votes to Labour, while a few Tory and Labour voters will have defected to UKIP.
In the national vote, all I care about is Labour do not get in and muck it up. The economy is now back on track and I think the coalition have been excellent, if that means we have a coalition again, that's fine by me.
-
If you've got the best party machine then why did you lose two local wards where you were incumbent in the recent election?
If you've got the best party machine why have you gone from 30 plus Councillors in Manchester to wipeout in the space of three years?
Anyway Wheels you've got inside information which we don't have so who is going to win the ward seats next year?
Are we ever going to be free from this LibDem stranglehold in Marple?
Labour have the best party machine, they have this strange network of activists whom mostly do not agree with the policies but will campaign because they like red rosettes.
if you've ever ventured onto Twitter, labour have a huge presence. Tweeting nonsense but they are there in numbers. I remember at the last general election, there was a campaign going about with Labour fans saying that they will win ht eelection because of the number of labour avatars on Twitter, fortunately, those who actually care about the country were more concerned about the country being governed by Brown and Balls so chucked them out.
-
Why would you want to take the politics out of local government Duke. There seems to be this fond belief in some quarters that good men and women will rise and magically manage our local affair without once saying in advance what the principles/philosophy is that will be underlying the control. Political should be central to local government so that we know in advance what we should expect. The people of Manchester who you often cite have the Party they have in control because that's what they have voted.
I am also always amazed that in some way local government is seen as secondary to Westminster, the Leader of Stockport Council has I am told a budget of £258 backbenchers at Westminster like Stunell a budget of zero.
Duke and I might agree to scrap Westminster altogether and transfer its powers to Brussels
-
I agree on the coalition Duke we would never have had Equal Marriage had it been left to Labour.
-
Equal Marriage - what an issue! That's sorted the country out.
-
Why would you want to take the politics out of local government Duke. There seems to be this fond belief in some quarters that good men and women will rise and magically manage our local affair without once saying in advance what the principles/philosophy is that will be underlying the control. Political should be central to local government so that we know in advance what we should expect. The people of Manchester who you often cite have the Party they have in control because that's what they have voted.
I am also always amazed that in some way local government is seen as secondary to Westminster, the Leader of Stockport Council has I am told a budget of £258 backbenchers at Westminster like Stunell a budget of zero.
Duke and I might agree to scrap Westminster altogether and transfer its powers to Brussels
I want to get the party politics out of local government. Local councillors are usually good if all they want to achieve is a good local economy and town. The ones that are trying to get into national politics are the worst, they are usually not good enough to be in politics at all and given a go at the council to keep them happy but not usually up to much.
Manchester have the council and leader they have because they are lemmings. Only when you get away from Manchester do the electorate think for themselves, the same can be said of the likes of (sorry to day this) Newcastle & Liverpool.
I agree that we need to know what the candidates are about. I'd like to stand as an indy but it can;t be in Marple as i don;t want LD's to lose a seat when Labour may take control. Imagine the carnage!
-
Well we differ Duke I would never vote for an independent they offer nothing I want someone who has clear political views to vote for. The majority of decision making members make is of a strategic nature not about particular ward issues. That requires that the controlling group and indeed members the opposition come from the same root and are not a range of independents who could only bring localism and their ward issues to the table.
-
Equal Marriage - what an issue! That's sorted the country out.
We all have our own issues which are central to us and for me this was a core issue. I am not denying you your issues the point I was making was that we have had a much more Liberal government because of the coalition and Equal Marriage would never have seen the light of day under "Bigot Gordon"
Despite the success of the coalition I would still rather see Brussels assume Westminsters powers
-
We all have our own issues which are central to us and for me this was a core issue. I am not denying you your issues the point I was making was that we have had a much more Liberal government because of the coalition and Equal Marriage would never have seen the light of day under "Bigot Gordon"
Despite the success of the coalition I would still rather see Brussels assume Westminsters powers
I would support a regional govt but that would require local taxation to be raised locally and that would in turn make the local govt more responsible.
I agree, equal marriage would not have happened without the coalition.
I can;t agree with the EU, an economic zone for me, not a governing area.
-
Well we differ Duke I would never vote for an independent they offer nothing I want someone who has clear political views to vote for. The majority of decision making members make is of a strategic nature not about particular ward issues. That requires that the controlling group and indeed members the opposition come from the same root and are not a range of independents who could only bring localism and their ward issues to the table.
You'd not vote for me if I gave you a great set of Stockport policies?
I'd revitalise the town centre by allowing the Portas Pilot steering group to shape things. I'd change the town centre's jobs to being very bonus driven, fill the shops and they get paid well, otherwise they are out.
I'd sell off all the unused council property.
I'd not allow the council to waste money on duplication such as: http://www.stockport.gov.uk/newsroom/Qualitybusinesses?view=Standard
I'd get rid of all the waste and hey-nonny nonny jobs within hte council.
Any savings, I'd pass on to council tax payers.
VOTE FOR ME - I'm great
-
Yes well as you would expect Duke I don't find any of that attractive at all so no you don't get my vote.
But the real point is you would have to find 31 others with similar strange views to be able to form a majority. And so it would be for any policy any independent wanted to introduce. You have to be able to work with others to enact your views policies and that means working through one of the parties. The only reason the Heald Green Independents achieves all they do on Stockport Council is that they work as a group and are in essence a political party serving Heald Green.
They also have by far the best machine.
-
Lisa Smart, Lib Dem prospective candidate for Hazel Grove is a "local candidate", lives in Romiley and has been a school governor 9 years!!! Take a look at the official LD website.....
http://www.libdems.org.uk/lisa_smart
But hang on, a couple of years ago, Lisa stood for the London Assembly elections and, surprise surprise, was, again, a 'local" candidate, having lived in WANDSWORTH for ten years..... ( just a few miles down the A6, I believe).
http://www.mertonlibdems.org.uk/news-mainmenu-2/27-2011-news/133-lib-dems-choose-local-campaigner-to-contest-london-assembly-elections.html
You don't need to be a member of Mensa to ascertain that Lisa wasn't actually a Governor at a school in any part of this constituency. She is also a professional politician, as the LDs admit on their website.
-
She is also a professional politician, as the LDs admit on their website.
Is there something wrong with that?????
-
Only when the rest of the entry on the LD website implies that she is a "local" person who volunteers for "local" causes. The entry is written so that the the vast majority of readers would infer that she is a governor at a local school. And, as for her 12 years working in "international finance"......well, we really need some international financiers in Hazel Grove, do we not?
Can you imagine what the Lib Dems, and Labour, would be saying if the Conservative or UKIP candidate had been working in 'international finance" for 12 years.
(BTW, I have no affiliation with any political party)
-
Yes well as you would expect Duke I don't find any of that attractive at all so no you don't get my vote.
But the real point is you would have to find 31 others with similar strange views to be able to form a majority. And so it would be for any policy any independent wanted to introduce. You have to be able to work with others to enact your views policies and that means working through one of the parties. The only reason the Heald Green Independents achieves all they do on Stockport Council is that they work as a group and are in essence a political party serving Heald Green.
They also have by far the best machine.
Ahh, that's because you are happy with a bland bunch of coucil staff whom are considered the willing unemployable. I say sack them and get a smaller team of achievers.
-
Is there something wrong with that?????
I'm no LD hater but yes there is. the professional politician is why they are so bad. From Lucy Powell, to Ed balls to David Cameron, they are part of a machine that has not touched real life. Ed Balls hat a year at the FT when it was suggested that he maybe look at another career and hey ho, he's an advisor to the Scottish PM , general hatchet man leaking stories and turns up at my old stomping ground nr Leeds where he wins a dirty tricks campaign and is shoehorned into a safer than safe red seat pretending to be ever so local.
Give me a well meaning chap with a few genuine thoughts than these wannbes.
-
The economy is now back on track
...having at last recovered from the completely unnecessary three-year slump caused by Osborne's disastrous 'emergency budget' in June 2010.
I think the coalition have been excellent, if that means we have a coalition again, that's fine by me.
Well in that case I think Duke may be pleased with the outcome next May. My prediction nationally would be that Labour would win the most seats, but fall short of an absolute majority. So after a flurry of late-night negotiations, just like last time, we will end up with a Labour/LibDem coalition. Prime Minister: Miliband, Deputy Prime Minister: Cable.
-
I do hope Vince doesn't make any "pledges" just before the Election......
-
...having at last recovered from the completely unnecessary three-year slump caused by Osborne's disastrous 'emergency budget' in June 2010.
Dave, this is why Labour must not be let near the economy. If you think things were fixed in 2010 and all that was needed was a plethora of non-jobs and billions of pounds wasted, you are very very very wrong (although I suspect there is a job at Labour head office for you)
Well in that case I think Duke may be pleased with the outcome next May. My prediction nationally would be that Labour would win the most seats, but fall short of an absolute majority. So after a flurry of late-night negotiations, just like last time, we will end up with a Labour/LibDem coalition. Prime Minister: Miliband, Deputy Prime Minister: Cable.
Cable is a loon, I thinks the likes of Laws and Alexander are very good - the Orange Book types are really spot on.
I agree, there will be a coalition, it will be tight but surely we can remember what the Scottish PM did to this country and his two sidekicks will do the same again.
-
Dave, this is why Labour must not be let near the economy. If you think things were fixed in 2010..... you are very very very wrong.
The facts are indisputable, I'm afraid, and Duke can't bluster his way out of them. After the world economic crash in 2007/08, UK GDP fell by 5.2% in 2009. Alastair Darling started a very effective recovery and we were quickly back to a growth rate of 1.7% in 2010. Osborne wrecked that, causing the growth rate to fall back to 1.3% in 2011 and a miserable 0.3% in 2012. Only three years after he came to office, in 2013, did Osborne manage to get back to the level of growth he had inherited in 2010. And all of this while other world economies such as Germany and the US were surging ahead. A truly dismal performance. ::)
-
The facts are indisputable, I'm afraid, and Duke can't bluster his way out of them. After the world economic crash in 2007/08, UK GDP fell by 5.2% in 2009. Alastair Darling started a very effective recovery and we were quickly back to a growth rate of 1.7% in 2010. Osborne wrecked that, causing the growth rate to fall back to 1.3% in 2011 and a miserable 0.3% in 2012. Only three years after he came to office, in 2013, did Osborne manage to get back to the level of growth he had inherited in 2010. And all of this while other world economies such as Germany and the US were surging ahead. A truly dismal performance. ::)
Germany & US were not hit in the same way as us as neither were reliant on banking and had a bigger manufacturing base. The recession had not really started to bite until 2010, nevermind recovery. Darling didn't have a plan, everything he wanted to do was being trumped by the interfering TSpm and his rabid fibbing sidekick.
What Osbourne did, after reading the note that said 'hard luck, we've spent all the money' was to review all the spending. It was the right thing to do because much of it was just a case of burying pound notes. cutting the wasteful budgets of local authorities and meaningless services was right, transferring that spending to infrastructure was the right thing and we're reaping the rewards now.
To quote a snapshot of a pre-election economy is naive at best.
-
Surely the US growth was based on hideous levels of national debt?
I don't think that I would want to hold the US govt as the bastion of sound financial planning.
-
Germany & US were not hit in the same way as us as neither were reliant on banking and had a bigger manufacturing base. The recession had not really started to bite until 2010
Excuses excuses! ;) A recession is defined as two or more successive quarters of negative growth. There were five consecutive quarters of negative growth in 2008 - 09. That's a recession in anyone's book, even Duke's!
All Osborne did in 2010 was grab the steering wheel and throw the gearbox into reverse. When he became chancellor the national debt was about 60% of GDP. Now it's around 75% - well done Gideon!
As for this: transferring that spending to infrastructure was the right thing and we're reaping the rewards now
...indeed. Trouble is, he waited until the 2012 Autumn Statement before he saw the error of his ways and increased capital spending. Hence the recovery which is now under way, after three wasted years. ::)
-
Excuses excuses! ;) A recession is defined as two or more successive quarters of negative growth. There were five consecutive quarters of negative growth in 2008 - 09. That's a recession in anyone's book, even Duke's!
Yes, by it's definition but the lag of the recession did not even start to kick in until well into the recession. (the reverse is also true - which is why Ed the stupid and Ed the evil are harping on about inequality of earnings and 'real' people (as if they've spoken to any) are note feeling the benefit.)
All Osborne did in 2010 was grab the steering wheel and throw the gearbox into reverse. When he became chancellor the national debt was about 60% of GDP. Now it's around 75% - well done Gideon!
Seriously, did yo really post that. When the country is leaking money like a sieve, you simply can't just stop the debt. This was made even worse as so many people were in the public sector and were very difficult to sack.
As for this:
...indeed. Trouble is, he waited until the 2012 Autumn Statement before he saw the error of his ways and increased capital spending. Hence the recovery which is now under way, after three wasted years. ::)
So how come the A1(m), M1, ECML, trans pennine, metrolink etc were all being built from 2010-2012?
-
More excuses! Duke really is remarkably tolerant of his hero's incompetence :D Let me spell it out: at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, there are two ways of reducing the ratio of debt to GDP. You can reduce the debt. Or you can increase the GDP. In his first three years in office, Osborne did neither!
-
Well, Dave, everything will be hunky dory when Ed takes the keys to No 10 next year, elected by the 35-40% of the electorate who contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer, purely because their votes are concentrated in 'safe' Labour constituencies, often with only 75% of the average constituency.
-
I'm no LD hater but yes there is. the professional politician is why they are so bad. From Lucy Powell, to Ed balls to David Cameron, they are part of a machine that has not touched real life. Ed Balls hat a year at the FT when it was suggested that he maybe look at another career and hey ho, he's an advisor to the Scottish PM , general hatchet man leaking stories and turns up at my old stomping ground nr Leeds where he wins a dirty tricks campaign and is shoehorned into a safer than safe red seat pretending to be ever so local.
Give me a well meaning chap with a few genuine thoughts than these wannbes.
Ok Duke I will remember to get a none professional doctor when next I need one. Why do you regard professionalism as perfectly ok is many occupations but not among our politicans? And don't tell me to declare and interest Dave!
-
Ok Duke I will remember to get a none professional doctor when next I need one. Why do you regard professionalism as perfectly ok is many occupations but not among our politicans? And don't tell me to declare and interest Dave!
In politics, we're better off having someone with life experience, not just a moron who's skill is to be able to re-iterate the nonsense from Mill bank. I really don;t want to hear another 'economic mess we inherited' or [yawn] 'tax cuts for millionaires.
I watched a town hall meeting where the Labour lad bought along a a hard hit person who was going to struggle with the bedroom tax. an hour f party politics later, someone pointed out that he should have told his constituent that help was available and the constituent needn't have worried. What a hideous Councillor who was prepared to string his constituent along for some silly party political stunt. IMHO that is not a good use of time and frankly, the Councillor IMHO is a disgrace.
Career politicians and local authority workers are generally failure in life - now, can I count on your vote.
-
Well, Dave, everything will be hunky dory when Ed takes the keys to No 10 next year, elected by the 35-40% of the electorate who contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer, purely because their votes are concentrated in 'safe' Labour constituencies, often with only 75% of the average constituency.
What an interesting post! So do we take it that Bowden Guy would like to see the clock turned back 100 years, to the days before universal suffrage was introduced, and the poor didn't get a vote?
-
Funnily enough, Dave, I didn't actually say anything of the sort. It is avfact, however, that the Labour Party has a natural constituency comprising a very large minority of the population who receive more in benefits (of many kinds) than they pay in taxes. This group of people are always likely to vote for parties that promises to raise tax rates, taxes that they will never have to pay.
In addition, the Labour core vote is heavily concentrated geographically, with many constituencies having very small electorates compared to the average (thank you to the Lib Dems for blocking any reform of this over the past 4 years).
Finally, with our First Past the Post system, this means that Ed Miliband can reasonably expect to win in 2015 with only 35% of the turnout which, as you know very well, is their whole strategy.
-
This group of people are always likely to vote for parties that promises to raise tax rates
A party that promises to raise tax - I'll believe it when it happens! :D
Ed Miliband can reasonably expect to win in 2015 with only 35% of the turnout
...... as opposed to the Tories, who won in 2010 with, er, 36% of the turnout. ::)
-
Here's a story with a difference inasmuch as it's a good story about one of our Marple Councillors, well I think it is anyway.
Apparently, the Councillor (I WON'T NAME) walked into the local Vet's surgery yesterday. HE/SHE foiund an injured bird in his/her garden.
So he/she fed it, watered it put it in a box and took it into the local Vet.
That's a kind thing to do.
-
Funnily enough, Dave, I didn't actually say anything of the sort. It is avfact, however, that the Labour Party has a natural constituency comprising a very large minority of the population who receive more in benefits (of many kinds) than they pay in taxes. This group of people are always likely to vote for parties that promises to raise tax rates, taxes that they will never have to pay.
In addition, the Labour core vote is heavily concentrated geographically, with many constituencies having very small electorates compared to the average (thank you to the Lib Dems for blocking any reform of this over the past 4 years).
Finally, with our First Past the Post system, this means that Ed Miliband can reasonably expect to win in 2015 with only 35% of the turnout which, as you know very well, is their whole strategy.
So what are you doing about it other than moaning on here
-
The Labour Party believes it can create social equality via increased public spending. During the Blair/Brown years there was a massive increase in public spending, most of which was designed to buy the votes of specific groups in society (freebies for the over 60s, Educational Maintenance Allowances for 16-18 year olds etc etc). The last Government raised taxation significantly via stealth taxes.
Does anybody seriously believe that, if Labour are elected again, they won't seek to further their aim of social equality by increased public spending? It's what they are. Otherwise, what is their purpose?
-
Thanks for the sage advice, wheels. Your comments are always spot on and hugely interesting. Keep up the good work and get out there campaigning for your "local" parliamentary candidate.
-
Thanks for the sage advice, wheels. Your comments are always spot on and hugely interesting. Keep up the good work and get out there campaigning for your "local" parliamentary candidate.
There was nothing local about Stunell why is this such an important issue, you just keep bulling the rest of us and all will be right with the world
-
The Labour Party believes it can create social equality via increased public spending. During the Blair/Brown years there was a massive increase in public spending, most of which was designed to buy the votes of specific groups in society (freebies for the over 60s, Educational Maintenance Allowances for 16-18 year olds etc etc). The last Government raised taxation significantly via stealth taxes.
Does anybody seriously believe that, if Labour are elected again, they won't seek to further their aim of social equality by increased public spending? It's what they are. Otherwise, what is their purpose?
Yep, they basically want take away individual responsibility and ambition, hand outs control people and keep them at the bottom.
-
What an interesting post! So do we take it that Bowden Guy would like to see the clock turned back 100 years, to the days before universal suffrage was introduced, and the poor didn't get a vote?
I can understand why you don't get economics, your comprehension skills are appalling if that's how you interpreted BG's post
-
Candidates don't have to be local, it's not a prerequisite but it's better if they have some connection to the area. If all things are equal with all the candidates then local is a plus.
Your Parliamentary candidate Wheels apart from where has she come from ? What experience in life has she had? For that matter what experience in politics has she had. Has she raised a family, held down a job, what was it - where was it? She's too young to have had experience in anything.
How does she come to be here other than she's identified a winnable seat on the map and probably parachuted herself in a couple of years ago.
As a previous poster referred to - she's a professional politician inasmuch as she wants to be an MP and in my opinion there's too many of them now. David, Nick and Ed are Prime examples and she's the same as them only years younger. The seat could be anywhere to professional politicians, they don't care as long as its a seat. I've looked and I can't find any credentials for her. If you were writing her CV for The local MP's job what would you put on it? I can't think of anything but I'm prepared to be convinced.
-
Candidates don't have to be local, it's not a prerequisite but it's better if they have some connection to the area. If all things are equal with all the candidates then local is a plus.
Your Parliamentary candidate Wheels apart from where has she come from ? What experience in life has she had? For that matter what experience in politics has she had. Has she raised a family, held down a job, what was it - where was it? She's too young to have had experience in anything.
How does she come to be here other than she's identified a winnable seat on the map and probably parachuted herself in a couple of years ago.
As a previous poster referred to - she's a professional politician inasmuch as she wants to be an MP and in my opinion there's too many of them now. David, Nick and Ed are Prime examples and she's the same as them only years younger. The seat could be anywhere to professional politicians, they don't care as long as its a seat. I've looked and I can't find any credentials for her. If you were writing her CV for The local MP's job what would you put on it? I can't think of anything but I'm prepared to be convinced.
The problem isn't just Dave, Nick and the other one's lack of real life experience, it's there at every level. Few of the cabinet have had other jobs, none (?) of the shadow cabinet have and this is replicated all the way down the line. The party machines are set up in this way, perhaps that's why UKIP have a growing support, they don't work in focus groups etc.
-
Simone, she is not my candidate I am not a member, I did not take part in the selection process I not even sure I will vote for her. But I do know she has the firm support of the local party, she was the clear victor in the selection process easily beating at least one local councillor.
-
Just been watching yes prime minister with teenage daughter, as it happens about local politics. She found it difficult to believe it was set decades ago ( except for some hair/clothing styles).
-
your comprehension skills are appalling if that's how you interpreted BG's post
My apologies to Duke and to Bowden Guy - obviously I failed to explain my point clearly enough. I will spell it out.
Bowden Guy wrote:
Well, Dave, everything will be hunky dory when Ed takes the keys to No 10 next year, elected by the 35-40% of the electorate who contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer.
The implication is perfectly clear, though I accept that it may not have been intentional: that such an election outcome would in some way be flawed or lack legitimacy simply because it is largely determined by the votes of less affluent people who pay little or no tax and therefore 'contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer.'
The notion that poor people's votes are in some way less valid than those of wealthier people clearly suggests a desire for a return to some kind of pre-1918 wealth-related qualification on the electoral register. That's all.
-
My apologies to Duke and to Bowden Guy - obviously I failed to explain my point clearly enough. I will spell it out.
Bowden Guy wrote:
The implication is perfectly clear, though I accept that it may not have been intentional: that such an election outcome would in some way be flawed or lack legitimacy simply because it is largely determined by the votes of less affluent people who pay little or no tax and therefore 'contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer.'
The notion that poor people's votes are in some way less valid than those of wealthier people clearly suggests a desire for a return to some kind of pre-1918 wealth-related qualification on the electoral register. That's all.
I don't think BG was saying 'No representation without taxation.' The Labour party have positioned themselves as being the party of the public sector worker and the unemployed. In govt, they've gone about making both pools of voter as large as possible. The problem with that is that it takes away ambition, enterprise and production of wealth creating units. The culmination of their work managed to have far more public sector workers and unemployed than the productive sector. That is not good for the country as a whole and is not sustainable.
-
Perhaps we should have proportionate representation
-
Dave, if I wanted to "imply" any of what you have written in your previous post I would have just said it outright. If I wanted to advocate a 'university" vote or a "business' vote, I would have said so. But then you have a habit of responding to what people haven't actually said. It's the oldest trick in the book.
-
Proportional representation is undoubtedly "fairer' but it can lead to situations where small parties wield enormous amounts of power which bear no relation to the "proportion" of votes they have attracted. I expect we will have a version of PR for General Elections within 10 years, possibly as the price of the LDs entering a coalition with Labour after 2015?
-
Proportional representation is undoubtedly "fairer' but it can lead to situations where small parties wield enormous amounts of power which bear no relation to the "proportion" of votes they have attracted. I expect we will have a version of PR for General Elections within 10 years, possibly as the price of the LDs entering a coalition with Labour after 2015?
I tend to agree with Bowden Guy that PR is essentially fairer. However, I'm not so convinced it will actually happen. After all, a kind of watered down PR was put to a referendum about three years ago, and the idea was thrown out by the Great British Public.
Meanwhile, perhaps Bowden Guy would explain to us why he referred to 'the 35-40% of the electorate who contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer'?
-
I tend to agree with Bowden Guy that PR is essentially fairer. However, I'm not so convinced it will actually happen. After all, a kind of watered down PR was put to a referendum about three years ago, and the idea was thrown out by the Great British Public.
Meanwhile, perhaps Bowden Guy would explain to us why he referred to 'the 35-40% of the electorate who contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer'?
The referendum on PR was a bit of naughtiness from the Conservatives. It was part of the coalition agreement but they knew full well that it was a rubbish alternative to FPTP. I would prefer PR but there was no way I was supporting the offer in the referendum.
I think UKIP and Lib Dems car broker PR to be back on hte agenda in the next coalition.
My view of the 35-40% of the electorate who contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer is simple. The labour party find favour in the public sector, unemployed, economically idle and green, wide eyed students - none actually contribute to the economy. I know you didn't ask me Dave and I'm sure BG will speak for himself but I think you are never too old to be educated.
-
The referendum on PR was a bit of naughtiness from the Conservatives. It was part of the coalition agreement but they knew full well that it was a rubbish alternative to FPTP. I would prefer PR but there was no way I was supporting the offer in the referendum.
AV is not PR, but then it was never meant to be. It's a much fairer way to achieve majority government without diluting the 'party market' and making a mockery of the system. For the worst of FPTP just look at the 1983 election. AV would have eliminated tactical voting, and to some extent it would have given smaller parties more of a fighting chance.
PR may be fair but it is ineffective. And whilst the principle of democracy is that everyone gets a shout, no government is ever going to please everybody. Coalitions are a worthy idea, but too many are bad for the long-term.
The only naughtiness of the AV referendum was that the Tories resorted to negative (with a small n) tactics in their campaign. Dave and co point out the major deficiency of PR in general, of too many minor parties wielding power that doesn't reflect their standing. And before anyone mentions the lib dems in the latest government, consider the fact that they have fewer seats than their national vote would have merited under PR.
-
My view of the 35-40% of the electorate who contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer is simple. The labour party find favour in the public sector, unemployed, economically idle and green, wide eyed students - none actually contribute to the economy.
We're all fully aware that the above is Duke's opinion - after all, he has never been shy of saying so on this forum! ::) And it may be that Bowden Guy takes the same view. What I don't understand is why they regard it as a problem.
At an election, people will generally vote for the MP or the party which they regard as best serving their own interests and those of their family, as they see them. That will include some people who don't earn much money and therefore don't pay much tax. Get over it!
-
Dave, unfortunately I don't feel the need to explain anything to you. Sorry, and all that.
-
Actually, on reflection , your last paragraph had proved my point. People who pay no, or very little tax, will indeed vote according to their "own interests"' knowing that the tax burden will then be shouldered by others (actually a very small minority of the "others"). You are much more eloquent than me - many thanks, old chap.
-
We're all fully aware that the above is Duke's opinion - after all, he has never been shy of saying so on this forum! ::) And it may be that Bowden Guy takes the same view. What I don't understand is why they regard it as a problem.
At an election, people will generally vote for the MP or the party which they regard as best serving their own interests and those of their family, as they see them. That will include some people who don't earn much money and therefore don't pay much tax. Get over it!
The problem is that it is not sustainable Dave. If you have more people taking more out of the system, then there is not enough money in the system to pay all your environment officers, conservation officers, teachers, teacher assistants, assistant to the assistant teachers, college managers, we needed to give them a title so we could waste some budget officers.
-
People who pay no, or very little tax, will indeed vote according to their "own interests"'
....unlike us, of course. ;)
-
....unlike us, of course. ;)
I suspect everyone will vote to favour their own circumstances. Understandably, those who pay a lot into the system feel aggrieved when they see a lot of people swinging the lead yet pulling out a living.
-
The Labour party have positioned themselves as being the party of the public sector worker..... The culmination of their work managed to have far more public sector workers than the productive sector.
The labour party find favour in the public sector, unemployed, economically idle
there is not enough money in the system to pay all your environment officers, conservation officers, teachers, teacher assistants, assistant to the assistant teachers, college managers, we needed to give them a title so we could waste some budget officers.
I've no idea what Duke does for a living (no need to tell us, Duke :D), but something tells me that it is less worthwhile than the honest and essential work of the teachers, doctors, nurses, police officers, members of the armed services, firemen, ambulance drivers, and all the other public sector workers whom he denigrates so relentlessly.
-
If you have no idea what he does for a living how on earth do you know if it is more, less or equally "worthwhile" than the list of public sector workers you have quoted?
-
I can understand parents hoping for 'George' clothing for kids but for adult clothing, it's really not good quality so you end up with a false economy of buying cheap and buying twice. Far Better to try Copenhagen or Becky sues in Marple or Eternal Envy in Stockport for ladies wear.
Looking at this post from Duke in the "sale of the co op to asda" thread, it looks to me like he may be in the Ladies clothing business!
-
If chicken lady is right and Duke is in the posh knicker trade, then I rest my case. ;D
-
I don't think BG was saying 'No representation without taxation.' The Labour party have positioned themselves as being the party of the public sector worker and the unemployed. In govt, they've gone about making both pools of voter as large as possible. The problem with that is that it takes away ambition, enterprise and production of wealth creating units. The culmination of their work managed to have far more public sector workers and unemployed than the productive sector. That is not good for the country as a whole and is not sustainable.
This is obviously a wind-up but I must respond. The Labour Party grew out of the trade union movement so the affinity with ordinary working people carries on. However, the post-war consensus by all parties has been to run a mixed economy, public and private. The roles of the public and private sector are pretty much symbiotic. I would refer Duke Fame or anyone else interested in economics to read Ha-Joon Chang's excellent book "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism". Careful though, it may challenge too many of your prejudices!
-
This is obviously a wind-up but I must respond. The Labour Party grew out of the trade union movement so the affinity with ordinary working people carries on. However, the post-war consensus by all parties has been to run a mixed economy, public and private. The roles of the public and private sector are pretty much symbiotic. I would refer Duke Fame or anyone else interested in economics to read Ha-Joon Chang's excellent book "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism". Careful though, it may challenge too many of your prejudices!
I'm not so sure about your use of the word 'symbiotic' I've not used that since O'level biology.
The Labour movement did grow out of the trade union movement which has morphed into something quite horrid. Where the original idea was to give the little guy a voice, what it has become is way of keeping a sizeable mass unmotivated to excel but grateful enough to the supporting and enlarging state so that not to revolt. The Labour movement appears to want to create state dependency like a drug pusher would keep a client in debt.
I've not read Ha-Joon Chang's book (perhaps I should) but I've read the article that spawned the book and some of his stuff in the guardian. I disagree with him in some cases, the big argument seems to be that he state can do things that individuals cant and it can back winners in terms of industry and in doing so create the employment needed for the masses very quickly. This is true but the like all gamblers, he only seems to speak of the backing of winners, never the losers & like all gamblers, every time they lose is a reason to gamble again. He refers to his native Korea to back his case but IMHO the exact opposite is true, he can look at Korea to prove how his case unravels but also look close to the UK and it's fairly recent past to see that state control and protecting (for the sake of full employment) mature manufacturing industry with tariffs etc simply delays but exacerbates the inevitable decline & disaster. Old factories were allowed to get increasingly inefficient as all they could do was plunder their domestic markets, Tony Benn argued 'til his dying day that all he did was good for his working classes yet he was wrong and Thatcher was right.
As for the ladies' wear business, Dave, it's not a business I'm in but just something for my spare time ;-)
-
Maybe I could have used the word interdependent, but symbiotic seems a reasonable word to describe how private industry relies in many ways on the public sector. Education, infrastructure, healthcare, all these publicly funded activities which you seem to detest pave the way for the private sector to make profits. Hopefully, you may be swimming against the political tide, as people see that the privatised energy industry turns itself into a cartel, a tendency of capital, and acts against the public interest. There is a ground-swell of opinion to re-integrate and bring back into public ownership the railways ahead of Labour Party thinking. Look at the failure of big Pharma to make long-range plans for new antibiotics because research is too expensive and not as profitable as other health areas. Here again, the State will have to intervene to support research otherwise the outlook for us all could be very bleak indeed.
-
Maybe I could have used the word interdependent, but symbiotic seems a reasonable word to describe how private industry relies in many ways on the public sector. Education, infrastructure, healthcare, all these publicly funded activities which you seem to detest pave the way for the private sector to make profits. Hopefully, you may be swimming against the political tide, as people see that the privatised energy industry turns itself into a cartel, a tendency of capital, and acts against the public interest. There is a ground-swell of opinion to re-integrate and bring back into public ownership the railways ahead of Labour Party thinking. Look at the failure of big Pharma to make long-range plans for new antibiotics because research is too expensive and not as profitable as other health areas. Here again, the State will have to intervene to support research otherwise the outlook for us all could be very bleak indeed.
I don't hate public services at all, you are doing a trick of the likes of Chang or Krugman where they invent the argument of the centre right and then argue against it. Public services are required to provide the infrastructure for business to thrive I agree but the state should only provide core services.
The point is, this must be minimised in order to be efficient. This has not happened in the UK, local authorities have invented happy-clappy schemes to employ people but achieve nothing instead of cutting services to the core. They are often seen playing at commercial enterprise which crowds out private enterprise & pushing costs up. Take manchester council (please) they cut libraries, lollipop ladies and libraries and make a huge political pitch about how they have to do this because of central government, at the same time they keep some ridiculous roles within the council and throw an £1/2m party for invited 'b' list celebs and local council egos. They are playing at property development, they own more empty property than any other private enterprise, sitting on it which forces rents artificially high which forces business out and of course, kills employment opportunities. In Stockport, the council has presided over a town centre that has more empty shops than any other town - in comes the Portas pilot scheme, working independently, they have managed to attract more businesses into the 'old town' in 12 months than in recent years, they have a big advertising program which has cost very little and slowly, on weekends, the Old town of Stockport is transforming from a place that died to one that has life.
Is it not telling that local authorities with the smallest budgets preside over the most successful towns because they allow business to get on with it rather than hitting them with red-tape (or for stockport - Conservation approved Heritage coloured tape). Take a town I know well, Basingstoke, it's not pretty, about the same size as Stockport but it doesn;t have an empty shopping precinct, it didn't concrete over it's river (actually it did a bit), it doesn;t have a plethora of hey nonny-nonny roles in council doing next to nothing yet it performs far better.
-
I don't hate public services at all...... Public services are required to provide the infrastructure for business to thrive I agree but the state should only provide core services...... local authorities have invented happy-clappy schemes.... Take manchester council (please) they cut libraries, lollipop ladies and libraries and make a huge political pitch about how they have to do this because of central government, at the same time they keep some ridiculous roles within the council..... a plethora of hey nonny-nonny roles in council doing next to nothing
Some sweeping generalisations and accusations there - I hope Duke can back them up. What exactly are these happy-clappy hey-nonny-nonny jobs which have been kept on while 'libraries, lollipop ladies and libraries' have been closed?
-
Some sweeping generalisations and accusations there - I hope Duke can back them up. What exactly are these happy-clappy hey-nonny-nonny jobs which have been kept on while 'libraries, lollipop ladies and libraries' have been closed?
Yes, please do tell!
-
Some sweeping generalisations and accusations there - I hope Duke can back them up. What exactly are these happy-clappy hey-nonny-nonny jobs which have been kept on while 'libraries, lollipop ladies and libraries' have been closed?
Much of what Duke says is well documented, he misses out only that Manchester are maintaining vast reservses that could be used to protect services, they prefer instead to introduce cuts to blame the coalition.
However in the case of Stockport Duke is way off the mark apart from a few Press Releases nothing has been heard of Portis, the redevelopment of the old part of Stockport has been lead by Council Offices with seed funding from the LA.
-
Much of what Duke says is well documented, he misses out only that Manchester are maintaining vast reservses that could be used to protect services, they prefer instead to introduce cuts to blame the coalition.
However in the case of Stockport Duke is way off the mark apart from a few Press Releases nothing has been heard of Portis, the redevelopment of the old part of Stockport has been lead by Council Offices with seed funding from the LA.
I'll give Dave a list of Manchester's wasteful approach again in a bit.
As for Stockport old town, the old Portas group we're a nightmare, in part because the council were dominant. This changed a year or do ago, look out for the old town web launch, summer fringe festival, empty shops filled, new bars opening, market full, the place feels better. Shows what a few good natured sorts can do without the beauracracy of council
-
I'll give Dave a list of Manchester's wasteful approach again in a bit. I knew I'd listed a few before: Nuclear Free Local Secretariat & Policy and Research Officers, New Media Managers, Link Workers - Indian and East African Asian; Cultural Regeneration Officers, Specialist Market Managers, Corporate Lead Officers - Lesbians' issues, Corporate Lead Officers - Gay Men's Issues, 'Zest' Hub Co-Ordinators, Climate Change Officers, Team Strategic Development oficers, Creative Directors, Expressive and Performing Arts Technicians, Travel Change Team Policy Officers, recycling officers & cycling teams etc etc It's these hey nonny nonny roles that are an attempt to employ the willing unemployable.
As for Stockport old town, the old Portas group we're a nightmare, in part because the council were dominant. This changed a year or do ago, look out for the old town web launch, summer fringe festival, empty shops filled, new bars opening, market full and sunday events, the place feels better. Shows what a few good natured sorts can do without the bureaucracy of council
-
You pick some really poor examples there Duke.
Further what you call some really good sorts nearly scuppered the investments in Stockport Centre. Self seeking individual v accountable LA officers. Errrm think your on the wrong side here Duke.
-
You pick some really poor examples there Duke.
Further what you call some really good sorts nearly scuppered the investments in Stockport Centre. Self seeking individual v accountable LA officers. Errrm think your on the wrong side here Duke.
Like whom? Thankfully the council rep has not been seen by Portas for 6 months. Which investment has been scuppered, the council have achieved an exodus.
WRT Manchester's waste, the Alicia Keys concert sums op Leese and his ego the best, how utterly disgusting. How about the other ego trip (and perhaps something even fishier??), the Tif thing where he spent £3m of our money on a pathetic brochure. THe property fudging is just stupid.
-
I knew I'd listed a few before: Nuclear Free Local Secretariat & Policy and Research Officers, New Media Managers, Link Workers - Indian and East African Asian; Cultural Regeneration Officers, Specialist Market Managers, Corporate Lead Officers - Lesbians' issues, Corporate Lead Officers - Gay Men's Issues, 'Zest' Hub Co-Ordinators, Climate Change Officers, Team Strategic Development oficers, Creative Directors, Expressive and Performing Arts Technicians, Travel Change Team Policy Officers, recycling officers & cycling teams etc etc It's these hey nonny nonny roles that are an attempt to employ the willing unemployable.
Come on Duke, you can surely do better that trot out this tired old stuff from two years ago:
Nuclear Free Local Secretariat & Policy and Research Officers, New Media Managers, Link Workers - Indian and East African Asian; Cultural Regeneration Officers, Specialist Market Managers, Corporate Lead Officers - Lesbians' issues, Corporate Lead Officers - Gay Men's Issues, 'Zest' Hub Co-Ordinators, Climate Change Officers, Team Strategic Development oficers, Creative Directors, Expressive and Performing Arts Technicians, Travel Change Team Policy Officers, recycling officers & cycling teams etc etc It's these hey nonny nonny roles that are an attempt to employ the willing unemployable.
....especially as it was not even original, but copied and pasted from the comments section of the MEN website!
We're not talking about two years ago, we're talking about yesterday, when Duke wrote: Take manchester council (please) they cut libraries, lollipop ladies and libraries...... at the same time they keep some ridiculous roles within the council
....and we'd be grateful to be spared any more stuff pinched from rants on other forums!
-
Come on Duke, you can surely do better that trot out this tired old stuff from two years ago:....especially as it was not even original, but copied and pasted from the comments section of the MEN website!
We're not talking about two years ago, we're talking about yesterday, when Duke wrote:
....and we'd be grateful to be spared any more stuff pinched from rants on other forums!
It's called efficiency, not re inventing the wheel. The problem is that all those roles are still active today. Added to that is the example of empty property, Alicia Keys jolly up etc etc.
Defending waste in the basis that Liebour have been wasting for years does not make it ok.
-
The problem is that all those roles are still active today.
Duke has no evidence for that - he's just peddling the same old bluff and bluster!
And as far as I can recall, even two years ago it was pretty unconvincing stuff. For example, I think I may have pointed out at the time that the 'Nuclear Free Local Secretariat & Policy and Research Officers' weren't employed by Manchester City Council at all, but by an organisation called Nuclear Free Local Authorities, which rents an office in Manchester Town Hall, thus providing a small income to help the hard-pressed council tax payers of Manchester.
But why let mere facts get in the way of a good rant! :D
-
Duke has no evidence for that - he's just peddling the same old bluff and bluster!
And as far as I can recall, even two years ago it was pretty unconvincing stuff. For example, I think I may have pointed out at the time that the 'Nuclear Free Local Secretariat & Policy and Research Officers' weren't employed by Manchester City Council at all, but by an organisation called Nuclear Free Local Authorities, which rents an office in Manchester Town Hall, thus providing a small income to help the hard-pressed council tax payers of Manchester.
But why let mere facts get in the way of a good rant! :D
Duke does, Duke just looked at Manchester councils website. Manchester finances the nuke free secretariat along with other hey nonny nonny wasteful councils. It's a net spend and cost to the tax payer, furthermore, as all these councils are subsidised centrally, this waste is costing you & I (ok maybe not you Dave)
-
Manchester finances the nuke free secretariat along with other hey nonny nonny wasteful councils.
Duke should be ashamed of using such deliberately misleading language. Manchester City Council does not 'finance' NFLA in any sense except that it is a member, along with many other local authorities. Similarly, I happen to be a member of the National Trust, but I don't 'finance' it.
NFLA staff are not employees of Manchester City Council. It is therefore complete nonsense to suggest that a job with NFLA is a 'ridiculous role within the council', just because NFLA happens to rent a room in Manchester Town Hall.
Come on Duke, either give us some honesty and hard evidence, or stick to selling frilly knickers. :D
-
Dave correct on this Duke. And even if he wasn't surely the services your pointing your finger at are good things that your beloved private sector would never pick up the costs of.
-
Duke should be ashamed of using such deliberately misleading language. Manchester City Council does not 'finance' NFLA in any sense except that it is a member, along with many other local authorities. Similarly, I happen to be a member of the National Trust, but I don't 'finance' it.
NFLA staff are not employees of Manchester City Council. It is therefore complete nonsense to suggest that a job with NFLA is a 'ridiculous role within the council', just because NFLA happens to rent a room in Manchester Town Hall.
Come on Duke, either give us some honesty and hard evidence, or stick to selling frilly knickers. :D
You do 'help' to pay for the national trust as does Manchester town council with the nuke free sectretariat, t pays twerp this useless role going.
-
...I happen to be a member of the National Trust, but I don't 'finance' it.
About 30% of the National Trust's income comes from membership charges, so probably fair to say you 'finance' it !
(http://i.imgur.com/HNSEQPF.png)
-
Dave correct on this Duke. And even if he wasn't surely the services your pointing your finger at are good things that your beloved private sector would never pick up the costs of.
There are a few good cases where the market cannot deliver services in a way that would be seen as perfect. Street lighting, pavements, street cleaning etc.
In some cases, the market provides services in an excellent way. One of which would be an Alicia Keys concert, if one likes Alicia Keys, one can buy a ticket. It is a service that is does not need state intervention unless the town clerk wants to appear important and needs to surround himself with labour Councillors, D list celebs and spend all the money that they'd have usually spent on Lollipop ladies, libraries and stuff.
However, in some cases, the market does not provide the service because it simply is not needed, a waste, an indulgence. I'd put the Nuclear free secretariat in that list, a pointless job created in order to give some unemployable bod a job. Going back to the council I used to live under 'down south' one that has one of the lowest central subsidies in the country, that wasn't a subscriber to the nuke free councils despite having the largest atomic weapons plant on it's doorstep.
It's nonsense Wheels, it's a case of local councils stealing money of the taxpayer to make their empire bigger. Stupidity.
-
You do 'help' to pay for the national trust as does Manchester town council with the nuke free sectretariat,
If Duke had written that Manchester City Council 'helps to pay' for the NFLA there would have been no problem at all with that. But as he so often does, he set out deliberately to mislead.
Meanwhile, we still await Duke's examples of real, current hey-nonny-nonny jobs which have been kept on while 'libraries, lollipop ladies and libraries' have been closed. But we're not holding our breath......... ;D
-
If Duke had written that Manchester City Council 'helps to pay' for the NFLA there would have been no problem at all with that. But as he so often does, he set out deliberately to mislead.
Meanwhile, we still await Duke's examples of real, current hey-nonny-nonny jobs which have been kept on while 'libraries, lollipop ladies and libraries' have been closed. But we're not holding our breath......... ;D
You are splitting hairs because you are trying to defend a local council and tow clerk that is happy to play politics with people's jobs whilst wasting money. I stated that it is a net cost to manchester town council to finance, what is a very stupid and unnecessary job.
Meanwhile, 'we' don't need to wait because the Duke has already answered the question. As I said, a quick look on manchester local council website tells you they are still current roles. One of which is arguably a positive role with some merit, why not work out which one it is.
Dave, you are in a corner, the Liebour council and it's town clerk are a disgrace, why don't you admit it and we can all ensure the UK is foes not vote for such a hideous incompetent lying bunch ever again.
-
Duke has one point Dave in that Manchester City Councils reserves are so vast it would only have taken a tiny proportion of them to be used to save all the jobs and services they have cut. In that respect Labour run Manchester are playing politics with peoples jobs and services. The fact is services have been cut and jobs lost in Manchester that need not have been.
It appears to me that Stockport have husbanded ;D their finances much better. How long have I been waiting to say
that.
-
Duke has one point Dave in that Manchester City Councils reserves are so vast it would only have taken a tiny proportion of them to be used to save all the jobs and services they have cut. In that respect Labour run Manchester are playing politics with peoples jobs and services. The fact is services have been cut and jobs lost in Manchester that need not have been.
It appears to me that Stockport have husbanded ;D their finances much better. How long have I been waiting to say
that.
I don't think the council should be committing to pay out more than it takes in, even if there are reserves. The problem for me is that they clearly are playing politics with peoples jobs and services when they are still prioritising non-essential services over what most would consider worthy council services. It seems to me like someone crying poverty and starving when they still take a 2 week foreign holiday every year.
(I know realise why you support 'professional' local politics Wheels, turkeys and Christmas ;) )
-
Duke has one point Dave in that Manchester City Councils reserves are so vast it would only have taken a tiny proportion of them to be used to save all the jobs and services they have cut.
I don't think the council should be committing to pay out more than it takes in, even if there are reserves.
I'm with Duke on this - it is definitely not 'good husbandry' ;) to use up reserves on recurrent spending, and I suspect the DCLG takes a dim view of councils that do that to any significant extent.
Contrary to Duke's assumption, I'm not a supporter of Manchester City Council. My reason for taking issue with Duke is simply because someone needs to challenge his long-standing lazy practice of copying and pasting out-of-date and unverified information off the internet, and passing it off as fact.
That said, having lived in Greater Manchester for nigh on 50 years, I have seen a total transformation take place in the city in that time. The IRA helped, of course, when they bombed the Arndale Centre in 1996. But look at what Manchester now has to its credit - the tram network, the highly successful Commonwealth Games in 2002, the Eastlands and Hulme developments, the Bridgewater Hall, the growth of the Northern Quarter, repopulation of the city centre, the construction of visionary buildings such as Urbis and the Beetham Tower, the three great universities, two world class football clubs, two great orchestras and a fine array of galleries, museums and theatres. It wasn't like that when I came here as a student all those years ago. And yes I know a lot of what has been achieved has been down to private sector investment, but it was also the City Council which had the vision and the energy to make it happen during a period when some other regional cities were stagnating.
-
I'm with Duke on this - it is definitely not 'good husbandry' ;) to use up reserves on recurrent spending, and I suspect the DCLG takes a dim view of councils that do that to any significant extent.
Contrary to Duke's assumption, I'm not a supporter of Manchester City Council. My reason for taking issue with Duke is simply because someone needs to challenge his long-standing lazy practice of copying and pasting out-of-date and unverified information off the internet, and passing it off as fact.
That said, having lived in Greater Manchester for nigh on 50 years, I have seen a total transformation take place in the city in that time. The IRA helped, of course, when they bombed the Arndale Centre in 1996. But look at what Manchester now has to its credit - the tram network, the highly successful Commonwealth Games in 2002, the Eastlands and Hulme developments, the Bridgewater Hall, the growth of the Northern Quarter, repopulation of the city centre, the construction of visionary buildings such as Urbis and the Beetham Tower, the three great universities, two world class football clubs, two great orchestras and a fine array of galleries, museums and theatres. It wasn't like that when I came here as a student all those years ago. And yes I know a lot of what has been achieved has been down to private sector investment, but it was also the City Council which had the vision and the energy to make it happen during a period when some other regional cities were stagnating.
Absolutely, it's so easy for idealogical right-wingers to slag off Councils for progressive policies they don't happen to agree with. Manchester is indeed a city to be proud of (and with a fine radical history). It's now a Tory and Liberal-free Council too. Hurrah!
-
I'm with Duke on this - it is definitely not 'good husbandry' ;) to use up reserves on recurrent spending, and I suspect the DCLG takes a dim view of councils that do that to any significant extent.
Contrary to Duke's assumption, I'm not a supporter of Manchester City Council. My reason for taking issue with Duke is simply because someone needs to challenge his long-standing lazy practice of copying and pasting out-of-date and unverified information off the internet, and passing it off as fact.
That said, having lived in Greater Manchester for nigh on 50 years, I have seen a total transformation take place in the city in that time. The IRA helped, of course, when they bombed the Arndale Centre in 1996. But look at what Manchester now has to its credit - the tram network, the highly successful Commonwealth Games in 2002, the Eastlands and Hulme developments, the Bridgewater Hall, the growth of the Northern Quarter, repopulation of the city centre, the construction of visionary buildings such as Urbis and the Beetham Tower, the three great universities, two world class football clubs, two great orchestras and a fine array of galleries, museums and theatres. It wasn't like that when I came here as a student all those years ago. And yes I know a lot of what has been achieved has been down to private sector investment, but it was also the City Council which had the vision and the energy to make it happen during a period when some other regional cities were stagnating.
Dave, we have some agreement.
However, my long standing rant about unnecessary jobs still stands, the roles listed still exist and this is happening whilst they are playing politic at the expense of people's jobs.
I can't say i share your interest in the Urbis buliding and the Beetham Tower, to me they are uninspiring although one is quite tall.
However, i do agree that Manchester has enjoyed a recovery when compared with say Liverpool or Birmingham. Like all real cities, Manchester was built on trade and it's success is all down to trade and capitalism, it's failure and decline, caused in no small part by Marxism which pushed trade away. In some cases, the local authority has been helpful in this but I suspect it's recovery is more down to the two football clubs and the commonwealth games rather than much else.
Compare though with smaller provincial towns, Manchester has performed badly and it is perhaps telling that towns that have consistently had strong economies and high employment have had Tory / Lib Dem local authorities.
-
Absolutely, it's so easy for idealogical right-wingers to slag off Councils for progressive policies they don't happen to agree with. Manchester is indeed a city to be proud of (and with a fine radical history). It's now a Tory and Liberal-free Council too. Hurrah!
I'm not aware of any idealogical right-wingers slagging anyone off.
As mentioned to Dave, it's telling that successful towns do not have entrenched Labour councils, the ones that do - Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle have lagged behind the likes of Basingstoke, Wokingham, Oxford, Cambridge etc
-
I'm not aware of any idealogical right-wingers slagging anyone off.
As mentioned to Dave, it's telling that successful towns do not have entrenched Labour councils, the ones that do - Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle have lagged behind the likes of Basingstoke, Wokingham, Oxford, Cambridge etc
It's unfair to compare Manchester with wealthy towns in the south-east that have totally histories and circumstances.
-
It's unfair to compare Manchester with wealthy towns in the south-east that have totally histories and circumstances.
The likes of Manchester should have had a head start over those towns that have excelled over the last 40 years. It hasn;t,
-
i do agree that Manchester has enjoyed a recovery when compared with say Liverpool or Birmingham. Like all real cities, Manchester was built on trade and it's success is all down to trade and capitalism, it's failure and decline, caused in no small part by Marxism which pushed trade away. In some cases, the local authority has been helpful in this but I suspect it's recovery is more down to the two football clubs and the commonwealth games rather than much else.
Indeed - but it was the City Council that got the Commonwealth Games to Manchester.
However, let's just take a closer look at just one of the supposedly 'hey-nonny-nonny' jobs in Duke's long list, Cultural Regeneration Officer. A quick search on the City Council website produces this summary of what the Council's Cultural Strategy Team actually does:
Manchester's Cultural Strategy Team
The Cultural Strategy Team was set up in April 2003, to provide a centralised focus for the implementation and development of Manchester's Cultural Strategy.
The team works very closely with internal (MCC) and external partners delivering cultural services. The team's work is directed towards the twin goals of increasing participation in culture by the people of Manchester and using culture as a means to improve the profile of the city with the aim of attracting people to live, work and play in Manchester.
The team coordinates the work of the Cultural Partnership including the delivery of Neighbourhood Renewal Fund programmes, monitoring revenue grants to arts organisations and coordinating the Manchester Youth Arts Network. In addition, the team has responsibility for the Bridgewater Hall, the Zion Centre and Urbis and promote a technical advice service for capital cultural projects.
Work is conducted with internal and external partners seeking to maximise opportunities and benefits, share best practice and help new projects and policies to be developed. As part of the wider Cultural Services department, the team works closely with Leisure, Events, Galleries and Museums, Libraries and Theatres and increasingly with Children's Services.
As Duke will know, these are tasks that have to be done. For example the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund is a pot of government money which is allocated to the UK's most deprived areas Somebody has to oversee the allocation and monitoring of it. Imagine what the likes of Duke would say if it were discovered that government grants to the City Council were being left unused, or, even worse, were being spent without any monitoring or audit! Similarly, the Bridgewater Hall and Urbis are fantastic assets, but they have to be managed. Funds are granted to arts organisations, and those have to be monitored and audited etc etc etc. The Manchester Youth Arts Network keeps kids meaningfully occupied, off the streets, and hopefully out of jail. All of which has contributing to the successful achievement of 'attracting people to live, work and play in Manchester.'
That sounds like pretty worthwhile work to me, and a lot less hey-nonny-nonny than selling knickers. ;)
-
Indeed - but it was the City Council that got the Commonwealth Games to Manchester.
However, let's just take a closer look at just one of the supposedly 'hey-nonny-nonny' jobs in Duke's long list, Cultural Regeneration Officer. A quick search on the City Council website produces this summary of what the Council's Cultural Strategy Team actually does:
Manchester's Cultural Strategy Team
The Cultural Strategy Team was set up in April 2003, to provide a centralised focus for the implementation and development of Manchester's Cultural Strategy.
The team works very closely with internal (MCC) and external partners delivering cultural services. The team's work is directed towards the twin goals of increasing participation in culture by the people of Manchester and using culture as a means to improve the profile of the city with the aim of attracting people to live, work and play in Manchester.
The team coordinates the work of the Cultural Partnership including the delivery of Neighbourhood Renewal Fund programmes, monitoring revenue grants to arts organisations and coordinating the Manchester Youth Arts Network. In addition, the team has responsibility for the Bridgewater Hall, the Zion Centre and Urbis and promote a technical advice service for capital cultural projects.
Work is conducted with internal and external partners seeking to maximise opportunities and benefits, share best practice and help new projects and policies to be developed. As part of the wider Cultural Services department, the team works closely with Leisure, Events, Galleries and Museums, Libraries and Theatres and increasingly with Children's Services.
As Duke will know, these are tasks that have to be done. For example the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund is a pot of government money which is allocated to the UK's most deprived areas Somebody has to oversee the allocation and monitoring of it. Imagine what the likes of Duke would say if it were discovered that government grants to the City Council were being left unused, or, even worse, were being spent without any monitoring or audit! Similarly, the Bridgewater Hall and Urbis are fantastic assets, but they have to be managed. Funds are granted to arts organisations, and those have to be monitored and audited etc etc etc. The Manchester Youth Arts Network keeps kids meaningfully occupied, off the streets, and hopefully out of jail. All of which has contributing to the successful achievement of 'attracting people to live, work and play in Manchester.'
That sounds like pretty worthwhile work to me, and a lot less hey-nonny-nonny than selling knickers. ;)
I think it's touch and go, I'd certainly look to prioritise library services and lollipop ladies above keeping the middle classes entertained.
-
Absolutely, it's so easy for idealogical right-wingers to slag off Councils for progressive policies they don't happen to agree with. Manchester is indeed a city to be proud of (and with a fine radical history). It's now a Tory and Liberal-free Council too. Hurrah!
What's so great about a Local Authority with no opposition whatsoever. Childish. That really is old Labour od the 70s
-
I think it's touch and go, I'd certainly look to prioritise library services and lollipop ladies above keeping the middle classes entertained.
So managing the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund is 'keeping the middle classes entertained' is it ???
-
So managing the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund is 'keeping the middle classes entertained' is it ???
As I said, it's touch and go or boaderline. Managing the renewal fund is a relatively small part of the department (this is not one role) and could easily be done elsewhere. Urbis and Bridgewater hall could easily be privatised and / or operated by a private company with expertise & the advantage of economies of scale that comes with specialisation.
-
Urbis and Bridgewater hall could easily be privatised and / or operated by a private company with expertise & the advantage of economies of scale that comes with specialisation.
The Bridgewater Hall is a fantastic asset for the city, so the City Council understandably maintains a very close relationship with it, in all sorts of ways. But it is already privately owned and run, for the very reasons given by Duke. And I believe it's the only concert hall of its type in the country which does not receive any revenue subsidy from a local authority. That's a remarkable achievement by the City Council though I don't expect Duke to give them any credit for it. :-\
-
There is a ground-swell of opinion to re-integrate and bring back into public ownership the railways
I am interested in this groundswell of public opinion supporting the renationalising of the railways . Perhaps it is based on the YouGov poll which reflects the views of 1905 adults of whom 974 supported the renationalisation of the railways. Of these fewer than half thought that fares would go down, that timekeeping would improve, that it would be more cost effective, that customer service would improve, that trains would be cleaner or more comfortable, or that rail workers conditions would improve. I also wonder how many of the voters had experience of the nationalised railway. Do they remember the days when BR was so underfunded that we had to look forward to a new train comprising a Leyland or Walter Alexander bus body mounted on underframes suitable for freight wagons?
Or is it a reference to the petition organised by “Bring Back British Rail”, "the collective voice of passengers and employees”, which has garnered 24,000 signatures, similar to the population of Marple, in five years? Passenger journeys per day approach 3 million and if we assume that each passenger makes two journeys a day it represents 1.5 million passengers so there are 1,476,000 who have not yet signed up.
Since 1997 passenger journeys have doubled despite fare increases but my wife and myself can still get to London and back for £33 for the two of us with our senior railcards (which cost nothing with a Tesco Clubcard voucher) and that is with a wide choice of trains and dates and on one of the best Inter City services in Europe.
With regard to the increase in fares, the Department for Transport indicates that rail fares increased by just over 40% between 1999 and 2009, the latest figures I can find. During the same period the cost of travelling by car increased by 50% and by bus and coach by 58%.
There is, of course, a powerful faction which is committed to renationalisation. Unite, RMT, TSSA, ASLEF, speak with one voice. Not surprising since, given a Labour government and renationalisation, their leaders would consider that they had arrived at the Pearly Gates but from all their strike polls etc it seems unlikely that they represent their own members, let alone the population as a whole. Meanwhile most of the population would soon realise that they had just crossed the Styx.
So where are these advocates to turn to find the political will? Certainly not the Labour Party which pledged prior to the 1997 election to renationalise the railways but didn’t. Ed Milliband has already said that he will not “go back to old-style British Rail” and that he wishes to retain the “benefits you can have sometimes from competition”. So it looks as if the Green party might be their best bet, even though one car can use 50% of the energy of a whole High Speed Train. How “green” is that?
-
Manchester to London is one thing - and I agree with Franz that we 'oldies' do very well with those fares. But please, please can we have some decent rolling stock on the local services to get us to Manchester in the first place! >:(
-
I am interested in this groundswell of public opinion supporting the renationalising of the railways . Perhaps it is based on the YouGov poll which reflects the views of 1905 adults of whom 974 supported the renationalisation of the railways. There is, of course, a powerful faction which is committed to renationalisation. Unite, RMT, TSSA, ASLEF, speak with one voice.
I can't speak for the trade unions, but I can assure Franz that anyone who has travelled on the East Coast Main Line over the past five years could not have failed to notice that renationalisation has been a huge success! This took place in 2009 after National Express defaulted on its contract and handed the keys back to the Department for Transport.
There was a great deal wrong with British Rail, and I agree that privatisation had some beneficial effects. But a great deal went wrong too. Railtrack went spectacularly bankrupt. The franchising process is a shambles, as no-one could have failed to notice. And there have been big increases in subsidies, as the rail companies cream off profits from the taxpayer-subsidised rail companies. Have a look at this site: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile
It shows that our own dear Northern Rail, with the most rubbish rolling stock in the entire country, as Barbara rightly points out, is also the most heavily subsidised, with 40p per passenger mile coming from us taxpayers. Although ironically you could say that Northern is not privatised any more, as it is now back in public ownership - it's just that it's part-owned by the Dutch public, not the British! And the same goes for several other rail companies, which are now wholly or partly owned by European governments, who are basically picking the pockets of the UK taxpayer!
And if Franz takes another look at that site, he'll see that the publicly owned East Coast Main Line receives one of the lowest subsidies, of just 0.5p per passenger mile.
Ed Miliband is quite right, IMO, to say there's no going back to old-style British Rail. But similarly, we have learned a lot of lessons from rail privatisation over the past 20 years, and one of them is that public ownership, if it is properly set up, can work very well.
-
I am interested in this groundswell of public opinion supporting the renationalising of the railways . Perhaps it is based on the YouGov poll which reflects the views of 1905 adults of whom 974 supported the renationalisation of the railways. Of these fewer than half thought that fares would go down, that timekeeping would improve, that it would be more cost effective, that customer service would improve, that trains would be cleaner or more comfortable, or that rail workers conditions would improve. I also wonder how many of the voters had experience of the nationalised railway. Do they remember the days when BR was so underfunded that we had to look forward to a new train comprising a Leyland or Walter Alexander bus body mounted on underframes suitable for freight wagons?
Or is it a reference to the petition organised by “Bring Back British Rail”, "the collective voice of passengers and employees”, which has garnered 24,000 signatures, similar to the population of Marple, in five years? Passenger journeys per day approach 3 million and if we assume that each passenger makes two journeys a day it represents 1.5 million passengers so there are 1,476,000 who have not yet signed up.
Since 1997 passenger journeys have doubled despite fare increases but my wife and myself can still get to London and back for £33 for the two of us with our senior railcards (which cost nothing with a Tesco Clubcard voucher) and that is with a wide choice of trains and dates and on one of the best Inter City services in Europe.
With regard to the increase in fares, the Department for Transport indicates that rail fares increased by just over 40% between 1999 and 2009, the latest figures I can find. During the same period the cost of travelling by car increased by 50% and by bus and coach by 58%.
There is, of course, a powerful faction which is committed to renationalisation. Unite, RMT, TSSA, ASLEF, speak with one voice. Not surprising since, given a Labour government and renationalisation, their leaders would consider that they had arrived at the Pearly Gates but from all their strike polls etc it seems unlikely that they represent their own members, let alone the population as a whole. Meanwhile most of the population would soon realise that they had just crossed the Styx.
So where are these advocates to turn to find the political will? Certainly not the Labour Party which pledged prior to the 1997 election to renationalise the railways but didn’t. Ed Milliband has already said that he will not “go back to old-style British Rail” and that he wishes to retain the “benefits you can have sometimes from competition”. So it looks as if the Green party might be their best bet, even though one car can use 50% of the energy of a whole High Speed Train. How “green” is that?
I think you have to ask what a public transport system is supposed to achieve. For me, it's moving more people in the most efficient way possible.
You also have to ask why the likes of Unite, RMT, TSSA, ASLEF, speak with one voice in favour of renationalisation? Is it because they want a more efficient system, lower costs, a service that is reliable and one customers can be assured that when customers plan their journey, customers know the whole service will not be threatened by industrial action.
Rail may be seen as the least successful privatisation but we currently have more passenger miles than any time under state control, more now than any time since 1939. The subsidy is now lower in real terms than under state control. We have fewer strike days than anytime since 1949. On a more qualitative point, the trains are now clean, food is better, stations are nice to be in and vandalism is almost non-existent.
The rail co's now fight to put on new services, the nationalised service were never enterprising enough to do that.
When BR attempted to bring in the tilting APT, the unions forbade their members to get in the cab for development as the set up was for one driver not the union agreed two drivers. This two driver arrangement was in place right up to privatisation, despite the 2nd driver having no role in getting the train to it's destination.
My answer is NO! I remember the service in those days.
-
I can't speak for the trade unions, but I can assure Franz that anyone who has travelled on the East Coast Main Line over the past five years could not have failed to notice that renationalisation has been a huge success! This took place in 2009 after National Express defaulted on its contract and handed the keys back to the Department for Transport.
There was a great deal wrong with British Rail, and I agree that privatisation had some beneficial effects. But a great deal went wrong too. Railtrack went spectacularly bankrupt. The franchising process is a shambles, as no-one could have failed to notice. And there have been big increases in subsidies, as the rail companies cream off profits from the taxpayer-subsidised rail companies. Have a look at this site: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile
It shows that our own dear Northern Rail, with the most rubbish rolling stock in the entire country, as Barbara rightly points out, is also the most heavily subsidised, with 40p per passenger mile coming from us taxpayers. Although ironically you could say that Northern is not privatised any more, as it is now back in public ownership - it's just that it's part-owned by the Dutch public, not the British! And the same goes for several other rail companies, which are now wholly or partly owned by European governments, who are basically picking the pockets of the UK taxpayer!
And if Franz takes another look at that site, he'll see that the publicly owned East Coast Main Line receives one of the lowest subsidies, of just 0.5p per passenger mile.
Ed Miliband is quite right, IMO, to say there's no going back to old-style British Rail. But similarly, we have learned a lot of lessons from rail privatisation over the past 20 years, and one of them is that public ownership, if it is properly set up, can work very well.
Hmmm, I used ECML either side of privatisation, the GNER service compared to BR was an amazing transformation. All of a sudden, the coaches were clean, the staff were polite and on board food improved no end. Also, off peak, prices fell. Newcastle station has become a pleasant place to be, as has Leeds & York.
Under GNER, ECML started running Eurostar trains which were great - never considered under state control and since dropped. Now under state control, the trains are back to the 125 & 225 fleet, it now runs the oldest fleet of the inter-city lines when it was the pride of the express lines. I'll give you that National Express were not too good, I think this in part was down to a shorter franchise meaning no incentive to invest.
The problem for me is that the Tocs do not own the tracks, back in the day sof the LNER, GWR, LMS etc, they put down the tracks and if they wanted more capacity, they just added it.
-
Some dodgy stuff there from Duke, with facts 'bent', as usual, to fit his ideological position.
Under GNER, ECML started running Eurostar trains which were great - never considered under state control
Nothing to do with 'state control' - the ex-Eurostar trains stopped running on the East Coast Mainline when GNER lost the contract to National Express in 2005.
Now under state control, the trains are back to the 125 & 225 fleet, it now runs the oldest fleet of the inter-city lines when it was the pride of the express lines.
No it doesn't. Most East Coast Trains are electric InterCity 225s which date from around 1990. The oldest fleet on former inter-city lines is that of privatised First Great Western, whose Inter City 125s date back to the 1970s..
The subsidy is now lower in real terms than under state control.
No it isn't. We now subsidise UK rail services to the tune of about £4 billion. The equivalent sum at privatisation, adjusted for inflation, was about £1.5 billion.
-
Some dodgy stuff there from Duke, with facts 'bent', as usual, to fit his ideological position.
Nothing to do with 'state control' - the ex-Eurostar trains stopped running on the East Coast Mainline when GNER lost the contract to National Express in 2005.
It was not down to GNER losing the contract, GNER Sold / walked away when Sea containers were in trouble - the lease of the Eurostar ended after that and NX did not renew it as they were having trouble committing.
No it doesn't. Most East Coast Trains are electric InterCity 225s which date from around 1990. The oldest fleet on former inter-city lines is that of privatised First Great Western, whose Inter City 125s date back to the 1970s..
No, at least 1 set of 225 were taken out by State East Coast (unrepairable? ) and replaced by old 125 sets - Over 50% of ECML locos are the old 125s, whilst GNER ran over 60% of it's services as the newer 225 electric: Kings Cross (yesterday) - the new train on the left is a First Hull train:
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kings_Cross_Train_Station_London_England.jpg)
First Great western run 125's and Newer 2001/2002 class 180s but the Electrification of the line means they will need to move over to Electric trains when this is complete.
No it isn't. We now subsidise UK rail services to the tune of about £4 billion. The equivalent sum at privatisation, adjusted for inflation, was about £1.5 billion.
Yes, the subsidy per passenger mile is lower, this is partly due to the private companies making train travel far more attractive than the State railway company.
There is no way BR would have faced up to the unions in the way the Tocs have, even if they have been weak.
'yesterday was in the Viz style of reporting
-
Interesting how ideology-driven stuff used to come from the left-wing of politics. These days it's the right who are the ideologues. The "One Nation" Tories were very much about managing the status quo, the mixed economy. These days,driven by the neo-Con agenda from the USA, they cannot see beyond the privatisation of all things, including our dear NHS, which despite promises, is plummeting from hero to zero under this regime. It is now Labour who take a more measured response, and do not fall into the private good, public bad mentality which is putting our society under so much strain.
-
Interesting how ideology-driven stuff used to come from the left-wing of politics. These days it's the right who are the ideologues. The "One Nation" Tories were very much about managing the status quo, the mixed economy. These days,driven by the neo-Con agenda from the USA, they cannot see beyond the privatisation of all things, including our dear NHS, which despite promises, is plummeting from hero to zero under this regime. It is now Labour who take a more measured response, and do not fall into the private good, public bad mentality which is putting our society under so much strain.
There is no ideology, it's just pragmatic common sense (and I'm not a one nation tory, more of a ultra liberal liberal). The NHS should be cherished but that does not mean we should blindly go forward as we always have because frankly, the NHS remit is in danger of far exceeding it's original ideals to an extent it simply is not affordable. The NHS has always contracted our supply, I see no need to keep all services to be provided 'in house' from the NHS. We're in a world health market, when a new theatre light is needed, the NHS does not employ an engineer to design another light, it goes to Seimens, Daray or GEC because (guess what) they are specialist experts at doing these things, surely the same should apply accross the board.
This 'more measured' view wasn't really evident in the 13 years of Labour, particularly the shambolic last 4 years of that tenure.
-
I think you have to ask what a public transport system is supposed to achieve. For me, it's moving more people in the most efficient way possible.
Me too. So as we agree for once, let's have another look at these figures:
Northern Rail, with the most rubbish rolling stock in the entire country, as Barbara rightly points out, is also the most heavily subsidised, with 40p per passenger mile coming from us taxpayers...... [whilst] the publicly owned East Coast Main Line receives one of the lowest subsidies, of just 0.5p per passenger mile.
Come on Duke, even you can work it out. Which company is 'moving people in the most efficient way possible'?
-
Me too. So as we agree for once, let's have another look at these figures:
Come on Duke, even you can work it out. Which company is 'moving people in the most efficient way possible'?
Not exactly apples and apples Dave. The main reasons for the East Coast profit being so high were that unlike a normal franchise, they have no obligation or commitment to invest their profits in improvements to the service or infrastructure and they aren't required to pay the government a Premium or fee for being able to operate the franchise. The big failing with National Express is that they overbid for the franchise and anticipated further growth in passenger numbers but that was 2007, the recession started to hit in 2009, passengers fell and income fell, NX could not afford the franchise commitment - without the franchise commitments, EC seem good value to the taxpayer but we've not seen any of the new routes expected from NX, East Coast now run to the 1949 timetable of 2 trains an hour to Leeds and two to Newcastle - the private franchises were expected to deliver 4 services an hour to both cities with new 180 trains. Without the weight of competition hanging over "state owned" companies, inevitably inefficiency and inertia will take a firm grip.
The ECML franchise document requires a whopping increase in services of 50% from 2020, State East Coast has not had this requirement.
To compare like with like you are lucky:
ECML has one of the few sections of UK railway where more than one operator in direct competition, the York to London stretch is served by two High speed train firms, East Coast and Grand Central. Walk-up prices are considerably cheaper on Grand Central, anytime return tickets nearly £130 cheaper than the state company. Journey times are on average quicker on the non-state company (although they don't stop so often)
-
I happened to hear Prime Ministers Questions on the car radio today. I think Duke rivals even David Cameron in his slippery evasiveness!
I think I provided a link in an earlier post, to a government website showing the subsidy per passenger mile of all the UK rail operating companies. In case I didn't here it is: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile
As Duke will see if he reads it carefully, the figures are a like for like (even apples for apples) comparison, net of any premium which may be payable. The rest of Duke's waffle is irrelevant.
-
I happened to hear Prime Ministers Questions on the car radio today. I think Duke rivals even David Cameron in his slippery evasiveness!
I think I provided a link in an earlier post, to a government website showing the subsidy per passenger mile of all the UK rail operating companies. In case I didn't here it is: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile
As Duke will see if he reads it carefully, the figures are a like for like (even apples for apples) comparison, net of any premium which may be payable. The rest of Duke's waffle is irrelevant.
I happened to listen at work, like the evil Eds, Dave doesn't talk about the economy anymore.
-
While you are on the subject of trains, have there been any developments relating to Metro tramtrains replacing Northern Rail on the Marple/Rose Hill line?
-
Interesting how ideology-driven stuff used to come from the left-wing of politics. These days it's the right who are the ideologues. The "One Nation" Tories were very much about managing the status quo, the mixed economy. These days,driven by the neo-Con agenda from the USA, they cannot see beyond the privatisation of all things, including our dear NHS, which despite promises, is plummeting from hero to zero under this regime. It is now Labour who take a more measured response, and do not fall into the private good, public bad mentality which is putting our society under so much strain.
There is some merit in that but lets not get too dewy eyed over Labour, it was Labour that introduced Tuition Fee it was Labour that developed and extended the market in the NHS and tried to do the same with our transport systems including road tolls
-
I happened to hear Prime Ministers Questions on the car radio today. I think Duke rivals even David Cameron in his slippery evasiveness!
I think I provided a link in an earlier post, to a government website showing the subsidy per passenger mile of all the UK rail operating companies. In case I didn't here it is: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile
As Duke will see if he reads it carefully, the figures are a like for like (even apples for apples) comparison, net of any premium which may be payable. The rest of Duke's waffle is irrelevant.
Read it carefully? Dave, if you look carefully you may find 3 companies where the subsidy per passenger mile is less.
You also have not taken into consideration the requirement for other franchises to invest and expand services. i.e From privatisation to the end of NXEC, key services between Leeds, London and Newcastle almost doubled, Leeds to Edinburgh 7 fold!. Since State owned, 4 servoces have been removed, NONE added.
Not only do your claims not add up, you are not looking at the bigger picture.
-
Read it carefully? Dave, if you look carefully you may find 3 companies where the subsidy per passenger mile is less.
I'm well aware that three of the 16 rail operating companies receive a lower subsidy than East Coast, and I never said otherwise. What I said was: Northern Rail, with the most rubbish rolling stock in the entire country, as Barbara rightly points out, is also the most heavily subsidised, with 40p per passenger mile coming from us taxpayers..... [whilst] the publicly owned East Coast Main Line receives one of the lowest subsidies, of just 0.5p per passenger mile.
If Duke had read my post properly he would have noticed that I referred to 'one of the lowest subsidies'. But of course, he wasn't paying attention, preferring to rely on a combination of knocking down a 'straw man', and his tried and trusted fallback of waffle, waffle and more waffle! ::)
-
I'm well aware that three of the 16 rail operating companies receive a lower subsidy than East Coast, and I never said otherwise. What I said was:
If Duke had read my post properly he would have noticed that I referred to 'one of the lowest subsidies'. But of course, he wasn't paying attention, preferring to rely on a combination of knocking down a 'straw man', and his tried and trusted fallback of waffle, waffle and more waffle! ::)
Dave, Dave, Dave so what you are saying is that an historically good low cost train line is operating at a slightly lower subsidy than some franchises but slightly more than others. That's not really a compelling case to for state ownership in trains.
Ideology is, as ever, getting in the way of logic.
-
I can't speak for the trade unions.
I don’t think you need to speak for the unions, Dave, they can speak for themselves.
So privatisation is unsatisfactory but we can’t go back to nationalisation, so what is the solution? Scottish independence would help as the government funding accounts for 61% of the cost of running the railway in Scotland and 31% in England.
In the UK the government pays nothing towards the cost of running the trains. Overall this cost is met entirely by the Train Operating Companies (TOCs). The government funding of £4 billion (in 2012/13) accounted for 66% of the cost of maintaining the network infrastructure, the remaining 34%, or
£2 billion, also being paid by the TOC’s.
Network Rail, which is responsible for the infrastructure, has no shareholders and pays no dividends, is a statutory corporation formed by the government when they forced Railtrack into bankruptcy so that they could acquire its assets for 20% of their pre bankruptcy market valuation and also to avoid adding their then liabilities of £30 billion to the National Debt. Despite this the National Audit Office has always been adamant that the company is, prima facie, nationalised and they appear to have won the day as the government are now forced by EU Accounting Standards to classify Network Rail as a government body and add their debts (now a staggering £140 billion ) to the National Debt. A gift from nationalisation to the lucky old taxpayers of our children’s and grandchildren’s generations!
The governments subsidy to the rail industry of £4billion contributes to the cost of developing and maintaining the infrastructure. Perhaps the government feels that it would be unreasonable to expect the passengers to cover the cost of this nationalised operation.
What is particularly interesting is that, although Network Rail pays no dividend, 25% of its total costs, ie £1.5 billion was, in 2012/13 spent on “financing costs”. Like all companies Network Rail needs capital and whoever supplies the capital expects a profit. That’s a rather emotive word for some so lets call it a “return on capital” instead. The TOCs obtain at least part of their capital from shareholders and they expect their return which comes in the form of a dividend. The railways will still require capital if they are renationalised and where will it come from? Not the taxpayers as this would require increased taxation or a reallocation of priorities. No, it will almost certainly come from government borrowing and the Chinese and Middle Eastern buyers of the government bonds will require their pound of flesh. So dividends paid to shareholders will be replaced by interest paid to bondholders. In addition the government will persuade foreign state funds to invest in specific infrastructure projects as seems likely in the case of HS2. So, the HS2 infrastructure will belong to the state, or taxpayer and, while dividends will not be an issue, vast amounts of interest will be paid to overseas financiers. Not a lot of difference in principle to Deutsche Bahn’s ownership of much of our rail freight business except that the German government will eventually be forced by EU regulations to sell its majority shareholding.
So much for the interest of the taxpayer, what about the passenger? The latest National Passenger Survey shows that just 6% of the 26677 passengers surveyed across the country were dissatisfied with the service. That seems remarkable and I wonder what it would have been prior to privatisation. This is achieved by management highly motivated by the benefit to their own shareholdings, by their salaries, and by their bonuses. What would be the motivation for the state employees?
The “East Coast” argument is interesting. As far as passengers are concerned, Virgin have an almost identical satisfaction rate although Virgin have shown better progress since Spring 2012 when 17% of their passengers were dissatisfied as opposed to 10% on East Coast. Presumably Virgin were still reeling from the effects of the disastrous performance of the nationalised infrastructure company in relation to the West Coast upgrade and the appalling mismanagement of track occupations.
As far as financial performance is concerned, East Coasts results in relation to subsidies looks impressive but it would be interesting to look at the detail. How do Virgin and East Coast track access charges and payments to their ROSCOs compare? How do East Coast finance their operation? Perhaps one day I will have time to find out although I suspect that the argument would still continue ad infinitum.
I agree with you, Barbara, in relation to our local rolling stock. It’s called cascading. The south east get the shiny new trains and pass their 15/20 year old stock on to the Midlands who pass their 25/30 year old stock up North. However, with regard to the cost of fares it is not just seniors who benefit from Virgin’s progressive and easy to operate (provided you have access to a computer) ticketing system. There are ten other railcards which provide discounts and, even if you are one of the estimated 33% who are unable to access a railcard, you can still get to Euston and back for £25.
-
I don’t think you need to speak for the unions, Dave, they can speak for themselves.
I don't speak for any trade unions, I speak for the taxpayer, who in 2012-13 made £5.9 million in profits from Directly Operated Railways, the holding company set up by the government to run the East Coast Main Line franchise after National Express pulled out five years ago. That is money which in the case of other train operating companies goes to shareholders.
In the UK the government pays nothing towards the cost of running the trains. Overall this cost is met entirely by the Train Operating Companies (TOCs). The government funding of £4 billion (in 2012/13) accounted for 66% of the cost of maintaining the network infrastructure, the remaining 34%, or
£2 billion, also being paid by the TOC’s.
It is not the case that 'in the UK the government pays nothing towards the cost of running the trains.' But it is complicated and I can understand why Franz is confused, so let me explain. As this well-worn but useful web page shows: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile ..there are two separate elements in the way the government subsidises rail services. There is the direct subsidy to the train operating companies, which is shown net of any premium which they may have paid. And there is their portion of the grant which the government pays directly to Network Rail for providing the track and other infrastructure.
As for this: an historically good low cost train line is operating at a slightly lower subsidy than some franchises
... 0.5p per mile is 1.25% of 40p per mile. It's the first time I've ever heard 1.25% described as 'slightly lower!' :D
Duke is right, however, about the East Coast Main Line being historically good and low cost. What went wrong, however, was that an ill-judged tender by National Express proved unsustainable, due to the unrealistic expectations of the company's incompetent management. An efficiently managed company has now taken over, and is doing very well, and returning profits to us taxpayers. Duke doesn't like that, however, because his 'ideology is getting in the way of logic' ;)
-
there are two separate elements in the way the government subsidises rail services. There is the direct subsidy to the train operating companies, which is shown net of any premium which they may have paid. And there is their portion of the grant which the government pays directly to Network Rail for providing the track and other infrastructure.
Oh dear Dave, and I thought I had made it simple. I don’t know whether you don’t understand or whether you are bending the facts to fit your idealogical position. I will try very hard to make it clear.
Your statement quoted above is absolutely correct. What you do not go on to say, however, is that the direct subsidy to the train operating companies in 2012/13 was a negative, -£968,100,000. In other words, the premium paid by the TOCs to the taxpayer exceeded their subsidy by that amount. The government paid nothing to the TOCs for running the trains, the TOCs paid the taxpayer for the privilege. (The results do vary as between the different TOCs but the figure quoted represents the sum of their efforts)
East Coast contributed £190 million towards this payment, an amount almost equalled by First Capital Collect, exceeded by Southern and completely outstripped by South West Trains, all of which presumably paid dividends to their share holders as well. I have no idea what East Coast paid in financing costs, which might have been paid out as dividends had they been privatised.
This £968 million which the TOCs paid to the government was, of course, available to offset the subsidy of £3.2 billion paid by the government to the nationalised Network Rail
The taxpayer and/or the government bond holder does subsidise the rail industry but that subsidy goes to that part of the industry that is nationalised which is further subsidised by that part of the industry that is privatised.
Please try not to let ideology get in the way of the facts
-
I agree with you, Barbara, in relation to our local rolling stock. It’s called cascading. The south east get the shiny new trains and pass their 15/20 year old stock on to the Midlands who pass their 25/30 year old stock up North. However, with regard to the cost of fares it is not just seniors who benefit from Virgin’s progressive and easy to operate (provided you have access to a computer) ticketing system. There are ten other railcards which provide discounts and, even if you are one of the estimated 33% who are unable to access a railcard, you can still get to Euston and back for £25.
Good contribution but for the bit above. It's not a north-south thing, after all, it's just down to the individual companies. However, you will find the popular routes get the newer trains whilst the slower, least popular routes , understandably, get the older stock.
For example, my old commute was in rather clumsily adapted ex-slam-door trains and last time I was down 'home' last summer, the route ran 'sprinter' trains which are similar to whatever we have in Marple. The marple trains also suffer from the use of ramblers, hikers and bikers so the best trains are not likely to be used as so much space is given over to storage.
I find a lot of northerners have a chip on their shoulder re. 'the south' but I find what they really mean when the y say 'the south' they mean London. It may be fair to say London gets the better trains but there are a hell of a lot more commuters going to London than doing the scenic route from Sheffield to Manchester.
-
I find a lot of northerners have a chip on their shoulder re. 'the south'
Cascading rolling stock has for many years been both policy and practice. The stock is owned by leasing companies (ROSCOs) and the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) lease the stock from them . As stock ages its leasing cost falls and because of that they gravitate towards the TOCs which are financially hard pressed. Northern Rail is possibly the best example but it also includes, among others, Merseyrail, Arriva Trains Wales with their Valley Lines services and, to a lesser degree, First Great Western with their Bristol suburban services and one or two other lines, including Reading to Basingstoke
A good example of cascading occurred a couple of years ago. London Overground got a delivery of brand new Turbostars and their Sprinters, built in the mid 1980s were passed down to First Great Western, their old Pacers, the lowest of the low, no bogies, just two axles, were then cascaded down to Northern.
It doesn’t have much to do with hikers or ramblers, just economics.
By the way, I didn’t mention “the south”, please read the quote again, nor did I object to cascading. Northern struggle to make ends meet and it would be daft to lease new Tubostars for our 20 minute journey into Manchester. Oh and, just for the record, I am a southerner.
-
Cascading rolling stock has for many years been both policy and practice. The stock is owned by leasing companies (ROSCOs) and the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) lease the stock from them . As stock ages its leasing cost falls and because of that they gravitate towards the TOCs which are financially hard pressed. Northern Rail is possibly the best example but it also includes, among others, Merseyrail, Arriva Trains Wales with their Valley Lines services and, to a lesser degree, First Great Western with their Bristol suburban services and one or two other lines, including Reading to Basingstoke
A good example of cascading occurred a couple of years ago. London Overground got a delivery of brand new Turbostars and their Sprinters, built in the mid 1980s were passed down to First Great Western, their old Pacers, the lowest of the low, no bogies, just two axles, were then cascaded down to Northern.
It doesn’t have much to do with hikers or ramblers, just economics.
By the way, I didn’t mention “the south”, please read the quote again, nor did I object to cascading. Northern struggle to make ends meet and it would be daft to lease new Tubostars for our 20 minute journey into Manchester. Oh and, just for the record, I am a southerner.
I do apologise, I was concentrating on the comment that the south get shiny new trains and the old stuff pushed up north. The point I was making was in agreement, the scenic route from Sheffield is not going to get the serious punters and yes, for a 20 min journey to Manc, it's not really a problem.
The commute I was referring to was the Reading to Basingstoke line which again, a 20 min journey on an old rattler was no bother. Incidentally, FGW run these far more frequently than British Rail where they ran 1 an hour until the evening when we were lucky to get a train after 10 pm
-
the direct subsidy to the train operating companies in 2012/13 was a negative, -£968,100,000. In other words, the premium paid by the TOCs to the taxpayer exceeded their subsidy by that amount.
Agreed. But the rest of Franz's post only makes sense if you regard the TOCs as making use of the rail network for free! The DFT does not do that, of course, as it would make no commercial sense. Hence the text in the government's own statement (see the link previously provided) which explains it like this:
For this indicator, total subsidy includes:
(a) subsidy paid directly to train operators by government
figures published by the Office of Rail Regulation based on passenger kilometres, converted to miles
(b) an allocation of the Network Grant (that is, payments made directly to Network Rail)
this is calculated by taking the total network grant, apportioned according to each franchise’s share of fixed track access charges
In other words, element (b) is the fixed track access charges paid to Network Rail by the taxpayer on behalf of the TOCs. There's a good brief explanation of how the franchising system works here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_franchising_in_Great_Britain
Note the bit that says that the premium 'masks the public subsidy of most rail franchises through the UK Government's direct grant to Network Rail, which therefore does not levy a full access charge to the franchisee for use of the infrastructure.'
I hope that helps to clarify the way it works.
-
Agreed. But the rest of Franz's post only makes sense if you regard the TOCs as making use of the rail network for free! The DFT does not do that, of course, as it would make no commercial sense. Hence the text in the government's own statement (see the link previously provided) which explains it like this:
For this indicator, total subsidy includes:
(a) subsidy paid directly to train operators by government
figures published by the Office of Rail Regulation based on passenger kilometres, converted to miles
(b) an allocation of the Network Grant (that is, payments made directly to Network Rail)
this is calculated by taking the total network grant, apportioned according to each franchise’s share of fixed track access charges
In other words, element (b) is the fixed track access charges paid to Network Rail by the taxpayer on behalf of the TOCs. There's a good brief explanation of how the franchising system works here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_franchising_in_Great_Britain
Note the bit that says that the premium 'masks the public subsidy of most rail franchises through the UK Government's direct grant to Network Rail, which therefore does not levy a full access charge to the franchisee for use of the infrastructure.'
I hope that helps to clarify the way it works.
In fairness Dave, Franz doesn't need anything clarifying by you, he doesn't sound like he's just spent Friday night looking at Wiki to answer a point on a local forum.
I'll not look up wiki as it seems better to get you to do it. Including the franchise fee, were nxec making a net payment to the treasury?
Given the outcome of the franchise was to increase services, as East Coast have actually reduced their services, will you agree that having East coast state owned means the service is stagnating. The new private franchise actually demands extra routes to Leeds and Newcastle it also demands new rolling stock.
You skate around these points whilst annoyingly talking in the 3rd person all the time.
Whilst I agree there is an appetite for nationalisation from some on the left, as ever, they've not thought it through.
-
... the rest of Franz's post only makes sense if you regard the TOCs as making use of the rail network for free!
This is a real puzzle. I can think of a couple of reasons why Dave would want people to make a completely false assumption but neither of them would flatter him.
I have already said that, in 2012/13, the TOCs, as a group, were able to deal with their operating costs from revenue. Those costs include £2bn paid direct to Network Rail in track access charges. The TOCs did not make use of the rail network for free and to say that my previous post only made sense if they did is rubbish.
So, in 2012/13, the government made available to the railway industry subsidies totalling £5.1bn in relation to franchised passenger services comprising £1.9bn to the TOCs and £3.2 billion to Network Rail. In the event the privatised TOCs, as a group, didn’t need theirs. They were able to finance their business from revenue and had enough left over to pay an extra £1bn to the government as a premium as well as paying company tax on what remained of their profit.. The nationalised Network Rail needed all of its subsidy so the government paid that company £3.2bn although the net cost was £2.2 billion after taking into account the premium received from the TOC’s. The major part of this subsidy was required to pay their £1.5bn financing costs. This might be the equivalent of dividends in a privately owned company, something which left wing socialists denounce with apoplexic rage but wouldn’t greet with a murmur when it appears in the accounts of a nationalised business
The amounts of £2bn paid direct to Network Rail by the TOCs plus the premium which they paid to the government were more than sufficient to cover Network Rail's total operating costs of £2.7bn for the year.
I have no stake in this matter. I am not a railwayman, I am not a member of any political party, and I recognise that a mixed economy is necessary but renationalise the railways, no, no, no. The franchising system needs to be vigorously tweaked but probably not replaced. I do not believe that the passengers, the taxpayer or anyone else would benefit.
Oh, sorry, I forgot about the Unions.
I originally posted in response to a post from tsheldon, aka “tigerman”. I will resist the temptation to respond to his comments regarding the energy industry and cartels.
I believe that we have now driven all other readers of this thread off to find more interesting topics and, as far as I am concerned, the matter is now closed
-
This is a real puzzle. I can think of a couple of reasons why Dave would want people to make a completely false assumption but neither of them would flatter him.
I have already said that, in 2012/13, the TOCs, as a group, were able to deal with their operating costs from revenue. Those costs include £2bn paid direct to Network Rail in track access charges. The TOCs did not make use of the rail network for free and to say that my previous post only made sense if they did is rubbish.
So, in 2012/13, the government made available to the railway industry subsidies totalling £5.1bn in relation to franchised passenger services comprising £1.9bn to the TOCs and £3.2 billion to Network Rail. In the event the privatised TOCs, as a group, didn’t need theirs. They were able to finance their business from revenue and had enough left over to pay an extra £1bn to the government as a premium as well as paying company tax on what remained of their profit.. The nationalised Network Rail needed all of its subsidy so the government paid that company £3.2bn although the net cost was £2.2 billion after taking into account the premium received from the TOC’s. The major part of this subsidy was required to pay their £1.5bn financing costs. This might be the equivalent of dividends in a privately owned company, something which left wing socialists denounce with apoplexic rage but wouldn’t greet with a murmur when it appears in the accounts of a nationalised business
The amounts of £2bn paid direct to Network Rail by the TOCs plus the premium which they paid to the government were more than sufficient to cover Network Rail's total operating costs of £2.7bn for the year.
I have no stake in this matter. I am not a railwayman, I am not a member of any political party, and I recognise that a mixed economy is necessary but renationalise the railways, no, no, no. The franchising system needs to be vigorously tweaked but probably not replaced. I do not believe that the passengers, the taxpayer or anyone else would benefit.
Oh, sorry, I forgot about the Unions.
I originally posted in response to a post from tsheldon, aka “tigerman”. I will resist the temptation to respond to his comments regarding the energy industry and cartels.
I believe that we have now driven all other readers of this thread off to find more interesting topics and, as far as I am concerned, the matter is now closed
I think most accept that the railways will always need a subsidy however it's operated. The question then will be, does this subsidy produce enough good outcomes. i.e. we're a small country therefore it's good to get people off roads etc.
If railways are worth having, then what's the cheapest way of achieving this. The franchise model, although not perfect has massively increased passenger numbers, trains and the service, from a qualitative view is far more enjoyable than in the BR days. We've also had far fewer strikes to an extent where we can rely on trains actually running.
The system is not perfect and needs tweeking but re-nationalisation would not deliver good outcomes unless you are a union.
-
I absolutely love Dukes comment that 'The marple trains also suffer from the use of ramblers, hikers and bikers so the best trains are not likely to be used as so much space is given over to storage'. The very big difference between this particular hiker and Duke is that we have adopted a very different approach from funding the Marple trains from our own pockets. There is a four-letter word which never Duke never utters but which I unashamedly shout at the railway guard and that word is FARE. Duke's many boasts on the Marple website about his own fare evasion in the past make him the most inappropriate person to make any comments about the railways and how they should be funded. Suffer as you may from having to share a carriage with the ramblers, hikers and bikers if it were not for this group of untouchables you would not have a Sunday train service. There was a long spell during the 1990s when this particular member of the great unwashed used to go banging on the door on the guard's cab demanding to pay my fare who had, I believed, received instructions from his/her employer to check no train tickets and collect absolutely no fares on the Sunday services in order to provide justification for the withdrawal the unprofitable Sunday service. I would argue with guards whose ticket machines always seem to break down on Sunday mornings and demand that they take my fare then write to GMPTE and the train company to complain and you know what? It was only the low life with rucksacks on their backs who seemed to demand to pay. If it were not for the ramblers and the Ramblers Association fighting for this train there would be no Sunday train service. Perhaps the best solution would be the reintroduction of a first class carriage to enable Duke to evade his fare without having to mix with the riff-raff.
-
I absolutely love Dukes comment that 'The marple trains also suffer from the use of ramblers, hikers and bikers so the best trains are not likely to be used as so much space is given over to storage'. The very big difference between this particular hiker and Duke is that we have adopted a very different approach from funding the Marple trains from our own pockets. There is a four-letter word which never Duke never utters but which I unashamedly shout at the railway guard and that word is FARE. Duke's many boasts on the Marple website about his own fare evasion in the past make him the most inappropriate person to make any comments about the railways and how they should be funded. Suffer as you may from having to share a carriage with the ramblers, hikers and bikers if it were not for this group of untouchables you would not have a Sunday train service. There was a long spell during the 1990s when this particular member of the great unwashed used to go banging on the door on the guard's cab demanding to pay my fare who had, I believed, received instructions from his/her employer to check no train tickets and collect absolutely no fares on the Sunday services in order to provide justification for the withdrawal the unprofitable Sunday service. I would argue with guards whose ticket machines always seem to break down on Sunday mornings and demand that they take my fare then write to GMPTE and the train company to complain and you know what? It was only the low life with rucksacks on their backs who seemed to demand to pay. If it were not for the ramblers and the Ramblers Association fighting for this train there would be no Sunday train service. Perhaps the best solution would be the reintroduction of a first class carriage to enable Duke to evade his fare without having to mix with the riff-raff.
I've evaded a fare on two occasions and completely inadvertently having gone to see the mighty United play away at Newton Heath of Milton Keynes. Car parking though, that's another matter.
Otherwise Rambler, I really think you have a chip on the shoulder there "low life" "great unwashed", have you considered self esteem classes
-
Wow! The cheek of the man who now makes a profession out of clobbering the ramblers and spent ages boasting about his fare dodging antics but a personal referral to Marple Hypnotherapy! Never heard of the place but you certainly deserve some discount for your advertisement when you visit next - keep up the attendance because it certainly seems to be having a positive effect upon your sense of humour. It must have been very distressing for you to have bought a return to Macclesfield and suddenly find that you slept all the way to Milton Keynes on one of those many Saturdays that the mighty United played at Wembley. How the heck can I come up with a response to that while I am choking with laughter on my coffee with the tears of laughter stream down my cheeks? Cheeky sod! Game, set and match Duke Fame for the time being. I think I will go back to watching Wimbledon.
-
PS Mr Moderator. Duke's reply was either much better with the referral to Marple Hypnotherapy in it or I am being totally delusional and truly in need of psychiatric care?
-
PS Mr Moderator. Duke's reply was either much better with the referral to Marple Hypnotherapy in it or I am being totally delusional and truly in need of psychiatric care?
I think you are looking to be somehow offended at a comment that wasn't intended to be anything of the sort.
-
Interesting to see Duke quietly rewriting his past misdeeds. Two years ago he boasted that he dodged the fare every time because it was too expensive.
When I've used the tram, I've been stunned by the price - basically i've jumped the fare every time.
Now it has become only two offences, and they were entirely accidental.
I've evaded a fare on two occasions and completely inadvertently
How times change..... ;D
-
Oh well, it just goes to show that there is hope for all of us. Duke may well have become a born-again fare payer who can now righteously bang his tambourine every time he wishes to pontificate about the wonders of the privatised rail system. Praise be to the Blessed Margaret for guiding him along the right track (although I must admit the left track always seemed to be more beneficial to the traveller and to the few bits and pieces of the nation that have not been sold off to foreign companies).
-
Interesting to see Duke quietly rewriting his past misdeeds. Two years ago he boasted that he dodged the fare every time because it was too expensive.
Now it has become only two offences, and they were entirely accidental. How times change..... ;D
Seems consistent to me, i go to Mankchester a few times a year, Manure away, Man C away and in the evening for a night out. I only have to use the tram when I go to Manure and I didn't pay to get on the tram but there was some confusion as to whether it was needed.
Similarly, does anyone need a TV licence these days? I don;t think I need one, the TV licensing folks claim I do even if I watch foreign channels on the intertwaddle