|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 2, 2023 12:00:41 GMT
ok, so I will put some science into this argument over the Opinion Polls Never read too much into one poll, but instead read the trend, which is highly likely to be close to accurate According to one of the Tory rags ( The Daily Express ) One poll shows a narrowing of the gap to just 10 points (Daily Express) "The survey by Opinium of 3,000 UK adults between September 27-29 puts Sir Keir Starmer's party on 39 percent, with Rishi Sunak's outfit on 29 percent" HOWEVER - going through all the most recent polls via "Britain Elects" website, there are actually four other polls all conducted at the same time as the Opinium one, Deltapoll, YouGov, TechneUK, wethinkpolling, all show the usual 16 - 20 point lead by Labour. This latest poll which is much lauded in The Daily Express COULD be signs of a shift, on the other hand it could just as easily be an "Outliner" ( one poll with inaccurate methodology ). What I would fully expect is some kind of "bounce" during and immediately after the Tory Conference, but then when it comes to Labours turn for conference, see what happens then. It is after BOTH conferences when polling will give us a real indication of where things are moving. desperate spin sid. According to blairite wisdom , if you remember , when corbyn was in charge of labour , we were told any other labour leader would be twenty points ahead of the tories by now.
Starmer is ten points ahead , and dropping.
i think, amazingly, he might have a point. I refer to the swings that occur during party conference. I’m thinking along the lines he is, that what will be interesting is what the polls say when the main parties have had their conferences…. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 12:03:11 GMT
It's a very curious argument to be making. The reason why our railways are so crap is because no kindly enemy bombed them to bits for us. If only they'd had done that we could have rebuilt them all by now in a form more suitable for modern times. Doesn’t seem such a curious proposition when you consider the importance of railway in WWII Britain. Because railways were an integral part of Britain’s defence — transporting military personnel, equipment and supplies, civilian survival goods like food and survival essentials, and children to safety — a great deal of effort was put into (and expertise developed) repairing bombed track and keeping trains running. A story to be proud of. But the result was that at the end of the War, Britain still had an operating rail system. After the expense of the War, the country had little money to spare for anything but essentials. For decades after, Britain’s nationalised railways were largely maintained on a limited make do and mend budget. The Marshall Plan aided Europe where most mainland recipients used it to repair and develop their infrastructure and industry. Britain spent most of its considerable aid on revamping its military. As a result, the UK fell behind its European competitors on many fronts — of which an ageing rail system was just one example… This is something of a digression, but the reasons the post war British railway industry suffered was because of a lack of investment due to post war austerity. Victorian infrastructure was not replaced and rather than investing in electrification as European governments who were rebuilding their railways did, UK governments continued to rely on steam because we had an abundant supply of coal. Towards the end of the 1950's and into the 1960's the railways were intentionally starved of cash to make a new motorway network more appealing to a sceptical electorate. Ernie Marples, who was a crook, had a lot to do with that, but that's another story. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 2, 2023 12:08:49 GMT
It's a very curious argument to be making. The reason why our railways are so crap is because no kindly enemy bombed them to bits for us. If only they'd had done that we could have rebuilt them all by now in a form more suitable for modern times. Doesn’t seem such a curious proposition when you consider the importance of railway in WWII Britain. Because railways were an integral part of Britain’s defence — transporting military personnel, equipment and supplies, civilian survival goods like food and survival essentials, and children to safety — a great deal of effort was put into (and expertise developed) repairing bombed track and keeping trains running. A story to be proud of. But the result was that at the end of the War, Britain still had an operating rail system. After the expense of the War, the country had little money to spare for anything but essentials. For decades after, Britain’s nationalised railways were largely maintained on a limited make do and mend budget. The Marshall Plan aided Europe where most mainland recipients used it to repair and develop their infrastructure and industry. Britain spent most of its considerable aid on revamping its military. As a result, the UK fell behind its European competitors on many fronts — of which an ageing rail system was just one example… Well it wasn't actually - defence spending was slashed after WW2 except for a slight uptick during the korean war. What the UK spent the Marshall Aid money on was the creation of the Welfare State and the NHS. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 2, 2023 12:19:32 GMT
Was it? Want to back up that claim? Most of ours was removed in the 1960's. Meanwhile most high speed rail links in Europe were built in the 1980's. It wasn't until the 1990's that these were linked between countries with intra-national corridors. We of course 33 years later are still arguing about whether to do it inside the UK. Lets not be silly ffs. The European rail network was largely rebuilt during the 1950's due to the fact that goods yards, railway tracks, bridges and tunnels are strategically important and obvious targets. However, in the UK our Victorian rail infrastructure was for the most part undamaged which is why unlike Europe, we still have Victorian bridges and tunnels. Yes the rebuilding of the railways in Europe after WW2 is well documented the main Railway Station in Munich was totally destroyed as were miles of track , likewise in France blown to bit bits by the Resistance and the RAF, today rail travel across Europe is far superior, more efficient and reasonably priced than ours, they have introduced more sleeper trains, buffet cars in order to compete with Low Cost Flights, Europe wide tickets to get to a holiday destination and major cities. Wife and I went all the way to Amsterdam for a long weekend via the Euro Star quick and much easier than flying very comfortable food was great, room to stretch our legs , no early morning mad dash to get to Stanstead Airport, charged a fortune to park the car for a few days then stand in line to get our bags on board , then queue up to get through security, bad food whilst waiting for the plane to arrive and a long walk to a boarding gate then packed tight like sardines with little or no leg room. Then hope our bags had not been lost in transit , or damaged by the handlers, we have had to buy new suitcases on two occasions over the last 10 years, top tip keep the receipt when you buy a new suitcase some airlines will not recompense you for a damage suitcase if you can't provide a receipt of when you bought it, |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 2, 2023 12:39:19 GMT
In a couple of weeks we're travelling from the south of France to Madrid on a single TGV train operated from Lyon by Spanish railways. It's a 5 hour trip (950 km), much quicker door to door than any feasible air connection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 2, 2023 12:47:10 GMT
In a couple of weeks we're travelling from the south of France to Madrid on a single TGV train operated from Lyon by Spanish railways. It's a 5 hour trip (950 km), much quicker door to door than any feasible air connection. Enjoy the journey yes it makes sense to travel by train , just sit back enjoy the scenery and of course some food and a glass or two of wine , I don't think we even have a Buffet Coach on our InterCity trains in the UK anymore, just a trolley for a stale cheese sandwich  |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 2, 2023 12:49:02 GMT
Doesn’t seem such a curious proposition when you consider the importance of railway in WWII Britain. Because railways were an integral part of Britain’s defence — transporting military personnel, equipment and supplies, civilian survival goods like food and survival essentials, and children to safety — a great deal of effort was put into (and expertise developed) repairing bombed track and keeping trains running. A story to be proud of. But the result was that at the end of the War, Britain still had an operating rail system. After the expense of the War, the country had little money to spare for anything but essentials. For decades after, Britain’s nationalised railways were largely maintained on a limited make do and mend budget. The Marshall Plan aided Europe where most mainland recipients used it to repair and develop their infrastructure and industry. Britain spent most of its considerable aid on revamping its military. As a result, the UK fell behind its European competitors on many fronts — of which an ageing rail system was just one example… Well it wasn't actually - defence spending was slashed after WW2 except for a slight uptick during the korean war. What the UK spent the Marshall Aid money on was the creation of the Welfare State and the NHS. Britain actually received more than a third more Marshall Aid than West Germany — $2.7 billion as against $1.7 billion — the largest share of any European nation. Post-war Labour chose not to use Marshall Aid for industrial modernisation. Britain’s Marshall Aid dollars gave it a chance to modernise as an industrial power. But Britain retained steam haulage, semaphore signalling and clapped-out track until the 1960s. Road and telecommunications network in Britain remained equally inadequate, ill-maintained and out-of-date. The modernisation of Britain as an industrial country for the sake of using Marshall Aid to support a world power role — strategic and financial. Britain's estimated defence expenditure for 1950-1 — the final year of Marshall Aid - amounted to 7.7 per cent of GNP, while other Marshall Aid recipients spent nothing on defence… |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 2, 2023 13:01:02 GMT
Doesn’t seem such a curious proposition when you consider the importance of railway in WWII Britain. Because railways were an integral part of Britain’s defence — transporting military personnel, equipment and supplies, civilian survival goods like food and survival essentials, and children to safety — a great deal of effort was put into (and expertise developed) repairing bombed track and keeping trains running. A story to be proud of. But the result was that at the end of the War, Britain still had an operating rail system. After the expense of the War, the country had little money to spare for anything but essentials. For decades after, Britain’s nationalised railways were largely maintained on a limited make do and mend budget. The Marshall Plan aided Europe where most mainland recipients used it to repair and develop their infrastructure and industry. Britain spent most of its considerable aid on revamping its military. As a result, the UK fell behind its European competitors on many fronts — of which an ageing rail system was just one example… This is something of a digression, but the reasons the post war British railway industry suffered was because of a lack of investment due to post war austerity. Victorian infrastructure was not replaced and rather than investing in electrification as European governments who were rebuilding their railways did, UK governments continued to rely on steam because we had an abundant supply of coal. Towards the end of the 1950's and into the 1960's the railways were intentionally starved of cash to make a new motorway network more appealing to a sceptical electorate. Ernie Marples, who was a crook, had a lot to do with that, but that's another story. Nobody appears to dispute that. But Britain got $2.7 billion in Marshall Aid, more than any other recipient, but chose not to use it for modernising its industry or railway. One reason Britain was able to leave its railway without major investment was that it still had a functioning, if outdated, rail system — a pragmatic, but county-damaging, decision… |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 13:41:06 GMT
In a couple of weeks we're travelling from the south of France to Madrid on a single TGV train operated from Lyon by Spanish railways. It's a 5 hour trip (950 km), much quicker door to door than any feasible air connection. High speed rail makes sense in Europe, not so much in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Oct 2, 2023 13:42:55 GMT
France got $15bn in Marshal Aid in comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 2, 2023 13:45:41 GMT
We are in Europe......
Actually it would have made sense to link HS2 through London via Crossrail and on via HS1 to connect the North of England to the mainland European rail network but that would have taken joined up thinking!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 2, 2023 14:04:50 GMT
In a couple of weeks we're travelling from the south of France to Madrid on a single TGV train operated from Lyon by Spanish railways. It's a 5 hour trip (950 km), much quicker door to door than any feasible air connection. High speed rail makes sense in Europe, not so much in the UK. Paris to Amsterdam 514 km; London to Edinburgh 660 km.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 14:33:22 GMT
High speed rail makes sense in Europe, not so much in the UK. Paris to Amsterdam 514 km; London to Edinburgh 660 km. An LNER train links London & Edinburgh at up to 125mph almost every 30 minutes through the day, 393 miles in 4 hours 20 minutes. Spending £billions on a new high speed rail link is a complete waste of time and money. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 14:35:15 GMT
In a couple of weeks we're travelling from the south of France to Madrid on a single TGV train operated from Lyon by Spanish railways. It's a 5 hour trip (950 km), much quicker door to door than any feasible air connection. High speed rail makes sense in Europe, not so much in the UK. For the benefit of pedants. High speed rail makes sense in 'mainland' Europe, not so much in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 2, 2023 14:40:24 GMT
High speed rail makes sense in Europe, not so much in the UK. For the benefit of pedants. High speed rail makes sense in 'mainland' Europe, not so much in the UK. As when and if HS2 comes on line in 2026 it is claimed it will take 3 hours and 56 mins from London to Glasgow, from Manchester to London 1 hour 11 mins , but who the hell wants to go Glasgow  |
|
