GB Energy is vague as fuck. Try going through the energy section of their manifesto, for a flagship policy it seems very light on details and it doesn't even cover how industry is supposed to stump up the £20bn funding shortfall from it.
Ah, but have you considered that taking something and sticking GB on the front makes it inherently better (no, I won’t explain how, it just does)? Take GB Railways for instance. Or GB News.
GB Railways doesn’t replace any of the TOCs, though. It merely brings a number of already state owned agencies and an industry body under one roof (specifically Network Rail, parts of the DfT, and the Rail Delivery Group).
It’s pretty much the definition of putting lipstick on a pig, though the change from a franchising model to concessions is at least some progress.
No, under the current plans from the Tories they'll move to a concession model akin to TFL, and the trains will not be operated by GB Railways. It's essentially identical to the model TFL uses with the Overground. Trains will still be operated by private companies, just like how Arriva operates the Overground. It may provide some benefit in terms of more joined up thinking when it comes to fares and timetabling, but realistically we could've had that under the old system if the DfT knew how to do their jobs properly.
It's at best a marginal improvement over the status quo at no doubt ridiculous expense to the taxpayer. Now Labour might plan to do things differently and go for a full nationalisation (which is probably also a stupid idea but for other reasons), but until Starmer is in No. 10, those plans are worth no more than the paper they're written on.
I’m talking of labours plans not the tories. The tories seemingly just want to keep the trains in private hands not put them under gb railway. Labour want to bring the tocs under Gb railway
Labours plan of bringing the tocs under public ownership is far better than keeping them in public hands. And so far labour have said they’d pay no compensation and bringing them into public hands would bring considerable savings so not sure the taxpayer will be paying much. They are absolutely worth something as it’s in the manifesto
British rail managed to synchronise connecting trains across different parts of the track network.
I've tried the same journeys after they were privatised and the connecting trains had very long delays. Because the private companies have no desire to help customers of a different company.
British rail managed to synchronise connecting trains across different parts of the track network.
I've tried the same journeys after they were privatised and the connecting trains had very long delays. Because the private companies have no desire to help customers of a different company.
British Rail and GB Railways are completely different things.
One is a nationalised rail operator, the other is a half-arsed attempt at fixing the myriad issues with our railways that won't actually help in any way because it's an incredibly minor change.
Idk they’ve been quite clear about it coinvesting in projects. Why is gb energy supposed to stump up a funding shortfall? It’s meant to invest not stump up a funding shortfall which I’m assuming is outside side of energy
It's going to cost £28bn, Labour have costed £8bn. They've made no mention as to how that £20bn shortfall is supposed to be made up other than industry will pay for it.
This is a flagship policy, the fact that it's so light is not confidence inspiring for industry.
Every mention of "co-investment" they've made to industry and in their manifesto.
That "co-investment" adds up to £20bn because the scale of the projects requires the full £28bn and that hasn't been downgraded, just the public contribution. They've not explicitly said £20bn but if you read between the lines with industry and their 3-1 catalytic investment strategy you get to between £20bn and £24bn of "co-investment". Hence why I, and industry, am so pissed off that their energy policy is so vague.
Two things: "Vote Labour it's better than voting Tory" and "Labour does have policies but we aren't going to say what they are"
What the Tories say is "We will make lots of money for ourselves and a small amount for some of our voters" except when they turn out to be incompetent so everyone loses money (Boris, Liz Truss, etc...)
I don’t think a single thing Starmer has done suggests he will ever stand up to the media whatsoever. We’ve never seen a likely Prime Minister with so little he actively believes in.
He believes in and uses legal methods in a political arena. That may turn out to be superb or truly god-awful when he leads a majority able to change the law.
It will certainly be different from anything the UK government has done since... Perhaps ever ?
No but if he’s being asked about a silly misrepresentation of reality he’s pretty safe to say that the thing that isn’t really happening today won’t happen in future. My point is that there’s so much nonsense being put about on what teachers are teaching that it gives any politician a lot of leeway to deflect this line of questioning.
You don’t. The public do not listen to Prime Ministers. Politicians are universally unpopular and largely seen as a necessary inconvenience by a lot of people. Other than ‘Get Brexit Done’ I can’t think of a PM that has successfully framed any major issue since the minimum wage.
The public have vastly different views to the establishment on immigration and it’s only since the collapse of Johnson that the Tories have sought to align themselves with the right on that issue.
Austerity was incredibly unpopular. Polling consistently shows support for greater public spending.
>Austerity was incredibly unpopular. Polling consistently shows support for greater public spending.
True. So the fact Tory PM's got away with it for 14 years is evidence they can distort the issues to the voters.
People who talk about Labour and the Lib Dems standing down in favour of one another simply do not understand that “not a Tory” doesn’t make you the same. Labour are not liberals.
The clesr difference between them is a good one tho so it makes them not as bad. Labour had some really good policies and doesnt support some extremely terrible tory ones like national services
That’s really nonspecific. I don’t even consider policies like national service, because they’re just whatever the conservatives came up with to sound good to old people.
The specifics are the new deal for working people national service(which is a Tory policy) gb energy toc nationalisation repealing troubles act etc etc
"Gender Ideology" a term that people who vocally show their disliking towards it often can't describe what it actually in the similar sense to the terms such as "woke" how long until people know it's not a real thing and it's just a strummed up false term. There is no "gender ideologies" at school, simply where is the harm in giving children a safe environment at their schooling. It's sad to see a vilification of such a small percentage of the population that have come under fire because of terms like this.
They want to simplify the medical process. Is this an improvement or is it not? If you agree that it is (and there's no way not to), then you must surely say that it is progressive, as it represents progress. It may not go as far as you or people in this sub want, but it is still an improvement.
"But Starmer said he'd hang a trans person in 2045!". So what? Let's focus on the actual policy rather than what was said.
Part of my issue is that they are still hammering away at a very small portion of the population who just want to live their lives. He could be the bigger man here and say "why are we focusing on this, let these people live their lives in peace and focus on the big issue we need to tackle as a society such as sewage, fixing the NHS and so many more things."
I mean, yes, but no.
The new proposals will make it easier in the sense of having far less demeaning paperwork to do and not having to have your spouse agree that you can change your sex.
It will make it harder because now the 2 year wait (previously called 'living in role' now a 'reflection period') starts at application, where as previously that wasn't the case.
One of my friends has been waiting for an NHS first appt and diagnosis for 7 years, she would have to wait another two years to change her legal sex with Labour's proposals.
So, not really a progressive change at all.
I've been saying in trans social circles for the last 12 months Labour are not friends to the trans community and Starmer would sell his mum for a vote.
Continual backlash of "they are better than the tories" etc... and now the community is giving me shocked Pikachu faces across the board, amazing.
Well - to be fair - the LibDems aren’t in favour of teaching “gender ideology” (whatever the fuck that is) either. We’re in favour of teaching the science and the science is that we need to evolve the way we talk about gender. If that’s Starmer means, then I have no issues. Calling it “gender ideology” accepts the framing that opponents of talking honestly about gender are trying to establish. “Gender Ideology” is one of those focus grouped scare terms like “death tax” that the right love.
If you're trans and reading this, please remember to fill in the consultation on RHSE guidance given that Labour are indicating that they will let this shambles continue.
https://consult.education.gov.uk/rshe-team/review-of-the-rshe-statutory-guidance/
It's important both in the sense that kids should be taught that trans people exist and also because of the impact it would have on sex education for children.
What does this even mean? He didn’t specify what gender ideology even is
What does anything Labour say mean?
Some mean stuff like the new deal for working people and gb energy but this is just nonsense
GB Energy is vague as fuck. Try going through the energy section of their manifesto, for a flagship policy it seems very light on details and it doesn't even cover how industry is supposed to stump up the £20bn funding shortfall from it.
Ah, but have you considered that taking something and sticking GB on the front makes it inherently better (no, I won’t explain how, it just does)? Take GB Railways for instance. Or GB News.
GB railways is absolutely better than having private companies
GB Railways doesn’t replace any of the TOCs, though. It merely brings a number of already state owned agencies and an industry body under one roof (specifically Network Rail, parts of the DfT, and the Rail Delivery Group). It’s pretty much the definition of putting lipstick on a pig, though the change from a franchising model to concessions is at least some progress.
It does. All tocs will not have their contracts renewed and GB railway will run them instead.
No, under the current plans from the Tories they'll move to a concession model akin to TFL, and the trains will not be operated by GB Railways. It's essentially identical to the model TFL uses with the Overground. Trains will still be operated by private companies, just like how Arriva operates the Overground. It may provide some benefit in terms of more joined up thinking when it comes to fares and timetabling, but realistically we could've had that under the old system if the DfT knew how to do their jobs properly. It's at best a marginal improvement over the status quo at no doubt ridiculous expense to the taxpayer. Now Labour might plan to do things differently and go for a full nationalisation (which is probably also a stupid idea but for other reasons), but until Starmer is in No. 10, those plans are worth no more than the paper they're written on.
I’m talking of labours plans not the tories. The tories seemingly just want to keep the trains in private hands not put them under gb railway. Labour want to bring the tocs under Gb railway Labours plan of bringing the tocs under public ownership is far better than keeping them in public hands. And so far labour have said they’d pay no compensation and bringing them into public hands would bring considerable savings so not sure the taxpayer will be paying much. They are absolutely worth something as it’s in the manifesto
British rail managed to synchronise connecting trains across different parts of the track network. I've tried the same journeys after they were privatised and the connecting trains had very long delays. Because the private companies have no desire to help customers of a different company.
British rail managed to synchronise connecting trains across different parts of the track network. I've tried the same journeys after they were privatised and the connecting trains had very long delays. Because the private companies have no desire to help customers of a different company.
British Rail and GB Railways are completely different things. One is a nationalised rail operator, the other is a half-arsed attempt at fixing the myriad issues with our railways that won't actually help in any way because it's an incredibly minor change.
Idk they’ve been quite clear about it coinvesting in projects. Why is gb energy supposed to stump up a funding shortfall? It’s meant to invest not stump up a funding shortfall which I’m assuming is outside side of energy
It's going to cost £28bn, Labour have costed £8bn. They've made no mention as to how that £20bn shortfall is supposed to be made up other than industry will pay for it. This is a flagship policy, the fact that it's so light is not confidence inspiring for industry.
Labour dropped the 28 bn pledge so no it won’t it’s gonna cost 8bn.
No, they dropped the £28bn being funded publicly. They've said the £20bn shortfall will come from the private sector.
Where have they said this? All I’ve seen is they’ve dropped the 28bn pledge and now it’s just 8bn
Every mention of "co-investment" they've made to industry and in their manifesto. That "co-investment" adds up to £20bn because the scale of the projects requires the full £28bn and that hasn't been downgraded, just the public contribution. They've not explicitly said £20bn but if you read between the lines with industry and their 3-1 catalytic investment strategy you get to between £20bn and £24bn of "co-investment". Hence why I, and industry, am so pissed off that their energy policy is so vague.
Two things: "Vote Labour it's better than voting Tory" and "Labour does have policies but we aren't going to say what they are" What the Tories say is "We will make lots of money for ourselves and a small amount for some of our voters" except when they turn out to be incompetent so everyone loses money (Boris, Liz Truss, etc...)
Tbf they have said what numerous policies are. This one is just nonsense tho
Because he is playing as safe as possible, he has an election to win. So he is being a vague as possible.
True
To be fair this may be a lawyerly response that means “I’m not in favour of that thing that the Tories pretended was an issue being an issue”.
You don’t get to decide what the issues are when you’re Prime Minister.
At that point you have the power to ride out a media attack, right now is the wrong time for him to have this argument. It's just practical.
I don’t think a single thing Starmer has done suggests he will ever stand up to the media whatsoever. We’ve never seen a likely Prime Minister with so little he actively believes in.
He believes in and uses legal methods in a political arena. That may turn out to be superb or truly god-awful when he leads a majority able to change the law. It will certainly be different from anything the UK government has done since... Perhaps ever ?
Kinda the strategy, the labour strategy right now is "don't fuck up".
No but if he’s being asked about a silly misrepresentation of reality he’s pretty safe to say that the thing that isn’t really happening today won’t happen in future. My point is that there’s so much nonsense being put about on what teachers are teaching that it gives any politician a lot of leeway to deflect this line of questioning.
But you do get to decide the framing and this question is ALL about framing.
You don’t. The public do not listen to Prime Ministers. Politicians are universally unpopular and largely seen as a necessary inconvenience by a lot of people. Other than ‘Get Brexit Done’ I can’t think of a PM that has successfully framed any major issue since the minimum wage.
Austerity? Immigration? Politicians don’t have to frame an issue to your satisfaction, just to the undecided voter.
The public have vastly different views to the establishment on immigration and it’s only since the collapse of Johnson that the Tories have sought to align themselves with the right on that issue. Austerity was incredibly unpopular. Polling consistently shows support for greater public spending.
>Austerity was incredibly unpopular. Polling consistently shows support for greater public spending. True. So the fact Tory PM's got away with it for 14 years is evidence they can distort the issues to the voters.
This isn’t going to be very productive. You aren’t making any sense.
People who talk about Labour and the Lib Dems standing down in favour of one another simply do not understand that “not a Tory” doesn’t make you the same. Labour are not liberals.
And Labour aren’t that far of Tory anymore
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Idk about the same he’s better than the tories tho still not particularly good especially on trans issues
I don’t think that’ll turn out true with their record of lack of integrity so far
I think it will tbh. Even with a lack of integrity its gonna be nothing like the tories and their policies and lack of integrity
They’re already as bad
Not at all theres still a clear difference
That’s not the same thing as being as bad
The clesr difference between them is a good one tho so it makes them not as bad. Labour had some really good policies and doesnt support some extremely terrible tory ones like national services
That’s really nonspecific. I don’t even consider policies like national service, because they’re just whatever the conservatives came up with to sound good to old people.
The specifics are the new deal for working people national service(which is a Tory policy) gb energy toc nationalisation repealing troubles act etc etc
"Gender Ideology" a term that people who vocally show their disliking towards it often can't describe what it actually in the similar sense to the terms such as "woke" how long until people know it's not a real thing and it's just a strummed up false term. There is no "gender ideologies" at school, simply where is the harm in giving children a safe environment at their schooling. It's sad to see a vilification of such a small percentage of the population that have come under fire because of terms like this.
People keep telling me Labour are progressive - yet they keep proving them wrong
They want to simplify the medical process. Is this an improvement or is it not? If you agree that it is (and there's no way not to), then you must surely say that it is progressive, as it represents progress. It may not go as far as you or people in this sub want, but it is still an improvement. "But Starmer said he'd hang a trans person in 2045!". So what? Let's focus on the actual policy rather than what was said.
Part of my issue is that they are still hammering away at a very small portion of the population who just want to live their lives. He could be the bigger man here and say "why are we focusing on this, let these people live their lives in peace and focus on the big issue we need to tackle as a society such as sewage, fixing the NHS and so many more things."
But he also wants to restrict things
They haven’t even said they’d repeal the Tory school guidance that’s basically trans section 28
I mean, yes, but no. The new proposals will make it easier in the sense of having far less demeaning paperwork to do and not having to have your spouse agree that you can change your sex. It will make it harder because now the 2 year wait (previously called 'living in role' now a 'reflection period') starts at application, where as previously that wasn't the case. One of my friends has been waiting for an NHS first appt and diagnosis for 7 years, she would have to wait another two years to change her legal sex with Labour's proposals. So, not really a progressive change at all.
Common Starmer L.
I've been saying in trans social circles for the last 12 months Labour are not friends to the trans community and Starmer would sell his mum for a vote. Continual backlash of "they are better than the tories" etc... and now the community is giving me shocked Pikachu faces across the board, amazing.
Exactly, they’re as bad. They’re just red tories!
Well - to be fair - the LibDems aren’t in favour of teaching “gender ideology” (whatever the fuck that is) either. We’re in favour of teaching the science and the science is that we need to evolve the way we talk about gender. If that’s Starmer means, then I have no issues. Calling it “gender ideology” accepts the framing that opponents of talking honestly about gender are trying to establish. “Gender Ideology” is one of those focus grouped scare terms like “death tax” that the right love.
If you're trans and reading this, please remember to fill in the consultation on RHSE guidance given that Labour are indicating that they will let this shambles continue. https://consult.education.gov.uk/rshe-team/review-of-the-rshe-statutory-guidance/ It's important both in the sense that kids should be taught that trans people exist and also because of the impact it would have on sex education for children.
Section 29
Precisely.
They haven’t even said they’d repeal the Tory school guidance that’s basically trans section 28