[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10

[Chicken Run]

The simplification of tickets is the thing which interests me most; I guess they need near on 100% to be able to introduce this. All the while there’s random operators with access to any section of a route it wouldn’t be possible.

Govia contract expires in 2025, i’m looking forward to seeing GBR on the side of all those trains, Thameslink and Southern etc, anyone who thinks profits will be ploughed into the system may be disappointed though, i read somewhere that the current private operators make 12p per passenger journey Not surprising that these companies are folding

 

[CheeseRolls]

The simplification of tickets is the thing which interests me most; I guess they need near on 100% to be able to introduce this. All the while there’s random operators with access to any section of a route it wouldn’t be possible.

Reliability is another obvious target for improvement, but change is going to take time, such is the depth of the mess.

 

[CheeseRolls]

It still feels like the media team at party headquarters are a bit chaotic and disorganised… as if all the players are a bit uncoordinated rather than a well oiled machine.

Yesterday, Shadow Home Secretary spoke to the press, after FOI revealed that all the different police forces in the country are paying wildly different prices for equipment/vehicles etc …. and I mean astonishing differences … She intends to centralise all purchasing nationally and use savings to fund 13,000 more coppers on the beat.

*This alone could have been a brilliant news day for Labour*

Yesterday, there was the announcement of the intention to re acquire the rail companies as the private contracts expire.. not sure who announced it- Shadow Transport Secretary?

Yesterday, Shadow Home Secretary said that, “Not one single migrant will be sent to Rwanda under a Labour Government.”

*Also a very big statement on a very topical subject *

Yesterday, Shadow Chancellor announced that A Labour Government will work more closely with business than any previous Government, specifically by developing £22Billion of private investments into green technologies by guaranteeing sales of those newly developed green technologies.

Seemed predictable that most of that would get buried under the railways announcement.


However, after months of waiting for some meat on the bones of the 5pledges, I am pleased to see plenty of policy development.

I can tell you now with the upmost confidence that policing will not save a penny via centralised procurement, in fact quite the opposite. This is a nice soundbite, but literally has no chance of succeeding. If they want to make savings the changes need to go much deeper.

 

[Rdodge30]

I can tell you now with the upmost confidence that policing will not save a penny via centralised procurement, in fact quite the opposite. This is a nice soundbite, but literally has no chance of succeeding. If they want to make savings the changes need to go much deeper.

I don’t see how it can’t save money if the below figures are correct:

Figures revealed in freedom of information requests submitted by Labour have found that the cost of patrol vehicles ranged from £12,500 for Staffordshire police to £22,361 in Cheshire. The cost of a high-performance vehicle in Merseyside was £55,000 — double the £27,000 paid by Lancashire.

Source: The Times

 

[sparkie]

Can't we just call it British Rail again rather than GBR ?

 

[CheeseRolls]

I don’t see how it can’t save money if the below figures are correct:

Figures revealed in freedom of information requests submitted by Labour have found that the cost of patrol vehicles ranged from £12,500 for Staffordshire police to £22,361 in Cheshire. The cost of a high-performance vehicle in Merseyside was £55,000 — double the £27,000 paid by Lancashire.

Source: The Times

There is an element here of toys for boys, but you can not change the behaviour via a centralised procurement team. All that happens is that they sign national deals and then every force does its upmost to circumvent these arrangements. Often for perfectly valid reasons.

If an officer is following up an investigation, unlike on TV a Hyundai i10 is a low cost option and forces do use these, they might even get classified as patrol vehicles. If you are looking for a rapid response to a serious incident, you need something a bit quicker. Lancashire is a big largely rural area, where cost per mile and the number of vehicles required will count for more than it does in Merseyside, where a small number of rapid vehicles can cover the entire area.

 

[Chicken Run]

Can't we just call it British Rail again rather than GBR ?

There was plenty wrong with BR, what’s wrong with GBR?

 

[Rdodge30]

Rosie Duffield was right to say that only women have a cervix, Sir Keir Starmer has said, changing his stance from when she first made the comments.

Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, admitted earlier this month that he was wrong to say trans women are women.

 

[Ooh it’s a corner]

There was plenty wrong with BR, what’s wrong with GBR?

Gee! Don’t you know?

 

[sparkie]

There was plenty wrong with BR, what’s wrong with GBR?

Just a preference and nostalgia. I liked the British Rail days.

 

[beorhthelm]

Rosie Duffield was right to say that only women have a cervix, Sir Keir Starmer has said, changing his stance from when she first made the comments.

Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, admitted earlier this month that he was wrong to say trans women are women.

seems like Cass review has shaken a lot of people out of the trance, or at least given them confidence to say what they always thought.

 

[Rdodge30]

It seems the business lobby has had some influence over The Deputy Leader’s worker’s review

This in today’s Guardian:


Keir Starmer’s party is preparing to announce details of its promise to overhaul workers’ rights if it gets into power – a centrepiece of its early plans for government, but subject to fierce lobbying from businesses.
Labour has repeatedly promised to ban zero-hours contracts, under which an employer is not obliged to provide any minimum number of working hours. But as part of its revised plans, although employers would be required to offer a contract based on regular hours worked, workers could opt to stay on zero hours.


*Also likely to drop the demand to ban late night work emails.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Is there no end to this man's talent?

From today's Telegraph

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

How do labour spokespeople answer the questions:
'How much will you reduce the number of illegal channel crosses to?' and
'how do you know your plans will work?'

I don't think our shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, is doing a good job now on radio 5

She is blathering on about what labour will do, and not answering the Q.

So is there an appropriate answer?

I think I would answer it this way:

"Imagine people are climbing over your garden fence, from a youth club next door, and stealing your fruit and veg? If you say you will go and speak to the youth club and get them to agree to keep a better eye on the kids, give them more things to do, and make it harder for them to climb over the fence, what would you think if a radio interviewer demanded to know exactly how many of these kids would be stopped? What if one of your neighbours proposed another plan, to not have anything to do with the youth club, but to employ guards in your garden who would abduct the kids climbing over the fence and drive them to Cornwall and leave them in the middle of Bodmin Moor? What would you say if the radio interviewer told you your plan wasn't as good as the Bodmin option, because you can't guarantee your plan would work?"

I think my answer would be "With respect, the Bodmin plan is in fact already in place. My neighbour took a boy to Bodmin yesterday. And yet kids are still piling over my fence. You are implying that my plan, which nobody knows will work till we try it, is worse than the current plan that we already know doesn't work. Isn't that not rather a silly argument? I can't predict exactly what percentage of you eyesight you would keep if I don't poke you in the eye. That doesn't mean that poking you in the eye is the preferable option. I could of course kick you hard in the bollocks if you ask me any more stupid questions"

Not sure why Cooper didn't say something along these lines rather than blather on.

 

[Rdodge30]

How do labour spokespeople answer the questions:
'How much will you reduce the number of illegal channel crosses to?' and
'how do you know your plans will work?'

I don't think our shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, is doing a good job now on radio 5

She is blathering on about what labour will do, and not answering the Q.

So is there an appropriate answer?

I think I would answer it this way:

"Imagine people are climbing over your garden fence, from a youth club next door, and stealing your fruit and veg? If you say you will go and speak to the youth club and get them to agree to keep a better eye on the kids, give them more things to do, and make it harder for them to climb over the fence, what would you think if a radio interviewer demanded to know exactly how many of these kids would be stopped? What if one of your neighbours proposed another plan, to not have anything to do with the youth club, but to employ guards in your garden who would abduct the kids climbing over the fence and drive them to Cornwall and leave them in the middle of Bodmin Moor? What would you say if the radio interviewer told you your plan wasn't as good as the Bodmin option, because you can't guarantee your plan would work?"

I think my answer would be "With respect, the Bodmin plan is in fact already in place. My neighbour took a boy to Bodmin yesterday. And yet kids are still piling over my fence. You are implying that my plan, which nobody knows will work till we try it, is worse than the current plan that we already know doesn't work. Isn't that not rather a silly argument? I can't predict exactly what percentage of you eyesight you would keep if I don't poke you in the eye. That doesn't mean that poking you in the eye is the preferable option. I could of course kick you hard in the bollocks if you ask me any more stupid questions"

Not sure why Cooper didn't say something along these lines rather than blather on.

How’s this for succinct from Labour:

Labour has said it will admit small boat migrants into the asylum system as the party vowed to overturn the government’s hardline asylum ban.

The party said it would consider the asylum claims of all those who have entered the UK illegally since March last year.

Labour has now clarified that those people — presently about 90,000 and expected to rise to more than 115,000 by the end of this year — will be entitled to claim asylum if it wins the election.

 

[Is it PotG?]

How’s this for succinct from Labour:

Labour has said it will admit small boat migrants into the asylum system as the party vowed to overturn the government’s hardline asylum ban.

The party said it would consider the asylum claims of all those who have entered the UK illegally since March last year.

Labour has now clarified that those people — presently about 90,000 and expected to rise to more than 115,000 by the end of this year — will be entitled to claim asylum if it wins the election.

Excellent idea.

 

[drew]

How’s this for succinct from Labour:

Labour has said it will admit small boat migrants into the asylum system as the party vowed to overturn the government’s hardline asylum ban.

The party said it would consider the asylum claims of all those who have entered the UK illegally since March last year.

Labour has now clarified that those people — presently about 90,000 and expected to rise to more than 115,000 by the end of this year — will be entitled to claim asylum if it wins the election.

Can claim asylum but that doesn't mean that it will be granted!!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

How’s this for succinct from Labour:

Labour has said it will admit small boat migrants into the asylum system as the party vowed to overturn the government’s hardline asylum ban.

The party said it would consider the asylum claims of all those who have entered the UK illegally since March last year.

Labour has now clarified that those people — presently about 90,000 and expected to rise to more than 115,000 by the end of this year — will be entitled to claim asylum if it wins the election.

Sauce?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Can claim asylum but that doesn't mean that it will be granted!!

Which has to be better than 'anyone arriving here cannot claim asylum and will be flown to Rwanda'.

Except, er, they won't.

 

[Rdodge30]

Sauce?

The Times

Instead, Labour plans to speed up the rate at which asylum claims are decided and to strike return agreements with other countries.