Why would you vote labour....

Maybe there is no evidence but I am sure that Labour wants open borders, I just have that impression.

Except they haven't, despite cutting everything to the bone the deficit stands at nearly £60 billion. This is one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, 'we can't afford it' is not an excuse, it is a question of priorities. It would cost nothing to renationalise rail, you simply don't put it out to tender at the end of the current deals.

We know from East Coast that the state can do a good job on this front.

Renationalising the railways wouldn't cost significant amounts of money. However the nationalised East Coast underperformed (both in financial return for the government and performance measures for passengers) its private sector predecessor and successor. The fact it didn't turn into an economic basket case overnight is not a sufficient advertisement for nationalisation.

However the main argument against nationalisation is rarely mentioned. Nationalisation makes the government responsible and that always means that management fails to take economically sensible but politically unacceptable decisions. Close a booking office, change stopping patterns or re-time a service and the only people who grumble are those adversely affected and grumble they will, no matter how few they are. Nationalisation makes politicians responsible for those decisions. Questions will be asked in Parliament and railway managers may be forced to give way.

With the railway as it is, most small decisions are outside political influence but one can still see with large decisions, like where finite investment funds are spent.

One can also see it with ticketing. Most people do not travel by train. It is a convenient lie for some of those members of the public to claim they do not travel by train because the tickets are too complicated. Politicians are all stripes demand simpler ticketing and railway managers continue to humour them. What that means in the real world is that the people who do travel by rail have to pay more for their tickets. If you have a Supercheap Return, a Cheap Return, a Mildly Expensive Return, and an Eye-wateringly Dear Return and this is simplified by eliminating the Cheap Return all those passengers who used to buy the Cheap Return because they did not did need whatever advantage was offered by the Mildly Expensive Return now have to buy that pricier ticket anyway.

Railways are the only mode of transport which has to humour the whims of those who fail to use it. The greater the level of public ownership the less the railways operate as a rational business.

Renationalising the railways wouldn't cost significant amounts of money. However the nationalised East Coast underperformed (both in financial return for the government and performance measures for passengers) its private sector predecessor and successor. The fact it didn't turn into an economic basket case overnight is not a sufficient advertisement for nationalisation.

However the main argument against nationalisation is rarely mentioned. Nationalisation makes the government responsible and that always means that management fails to take economically sensible but politically unacceptable decisions. Close a booking office, change stopping patterns or re-time a service and the only people who grumble are those adversely affected and grumble they will, no matter how few they are. Nationalisation makes politicians responsible for those decisions. Questions will be asked in Parliament and railway managers may be forced to give way.

With the railway as it is, most small decisions are outside political influence but one can still see with large decisions, like where finite investment funds are spent.

One can also see it with ticketing. Most people do not travel by train. It is a convenient lie for some of those members of the public to claim they do not travel by train because the tickets are too complicated. Politicians are all stripes demand simpler ticketing and railway managers continue to humour them. What that means in the real world is that the people who do travel by rail have to pay more for their tickets. If you have a Supercheap Return, a Cheap Return, a Mildly Expensive Return, and an Eye-wateringly Dear Return and this is simplified by eliminating the Cheap Return all those passengers who used to buy the Cheap Return because they did not did need whatever advantage was offered by the Mildly Expensive Return now have to buy that pricier ticket anyway.

Railways are the only mode of transport which has to humour the whims of those who fail to use it. The greater the level of public ownership the less the railways operate as a rational business.

Why are people making Corbyn's leadership skills as a reason to vote Conservative? His great ideas are the only thing people should be considering as they are the only factor that will significantly impact people's lives. Theresa May on the other hand is getting us NOWHERE - why on earth is she wasting time on considering useless and ridiculous (and morally wrong) ideas such as bringing back fox hunting when there are way more major issues that are staring blatantly at her in the eye????

Voting MPs in just because of their great speeches and good reputation is not going to get the country ANYWHERE. People need to stop being blinded and brainwashed by the manipulative Tories and look into what really matters, including the policies that are going to affect us and the future generations.

I on the other hand have a hard time getting my head around why people would vote for Corbyn or Labour for that matter. At the end of the day, the winner will be symbol and leader of the UK in matters domestic and foreign. I know who i'd prefer.

With Corbyn's links to terror groups such the IRA and the like, I find it amazing that people would still vote for him knowing these links. Perhaps people have forgotten the days when London was being bombed by the IRA, but my family being from Ulster I will never forget. I find it unbelievable and frankly unpatriotic that people would vote for this guy. Then again, it shows the state of the left today - unpatriotic and anti British in every regard.

This is the most ridiculous post i have read on TSR today.

I am very sorry for your loss and i agree that corbyn sympathised or may have had direct/indirect links to the IRA, but that was 20 years ago.

I, too, have links like you (but in my larger family) and my family and I have moved on. We are voting for Labour based on policy not on personality. Corbyn is just one person in a party of more than 500,000 members.

This country has down criminal things too like slave trade, burning down people's homes around the world during Empire times etc. We acknowledge that it was bad and we hope people move on.

You have a strong vendetta and want to revenge against corbyn but you need to grow and move on. Don't hold to the past, please let it go.

Yes, you will vote against Corbyn and he may lose but will it give you full closure to accept the past? Will you destroy the chance for many people to have a good future because of your "revenge"?

My Jewish girlfriend used to hate everything German because of her family's past until she faced her fears and visited Germany with me. I wanted her to move on badly because she held onto a weight that kept her down.

It is your right to vote for the person you want, but please make a clear decision. You are voting for a local MP.

If in the end you cannot get passed it, then it is sad but i will respect your decision. You cannot live in the past forever.

I get you. I get it was 20 years ago. But I cannot accept a man who stood on stage in sympathy with terrorists as Prime Minister. Alongside his frank unsuitability to be Prime Minister, many of his policies are economically unviable.

If elected, he will be the man who is leading the country. Can you seriously see Corbyn leading Brexit negotiations and the sensitive times after? Considering 3/4 of his own Parliamentary party are against him, how can he lead a country?

I thank you for your condolences, admittedly its a sore subject.

I genuinely can see Corbyn leading brexit negotiations and difficult issues. He has a calm approach and we need that.

Just after the brexit triggering, theresa may sent battleships to gilbratar against Spain. Do you really want someone like that with an unstable approach? Someone who prefers no deal to a deal of compromises?

The media has spurned Corbyn into this unstable creature which he is not. I don't agree that his policies are unviable. It can be achieved if we contribute more and reform failing programmes like trident that costs £140 billion.

Like i wrote before, if you choose to vote against labour based on your beliefs, i will respect your choice. I may not agree, but i will respect it.

Finally, what happens if he becomes PM, would you leave the country? I doubt it.

At the end of the day, these negotiations have not got to be favourable to the EU, they have got to be favourable to us. Theresa May, as she has shown, has the staying power to resist ridiculous demands from brussels. Such as the £100 Billion 'Divorce Bill' they may send our way. We owe them nothing, and must ensure conditions are favourable to us. I do not believe in compromises that may compromise us economically. We should be given a good deal or none at all.

As for the warships off Gibraltar. She obviously did the right thing. The Spanish have had their eye on it and may try and use it as a bargaining chip in the negotiations. The show of strength swiftly put an end to that. Rightful British territory should be defended to the end.

Essential policies like Trident renewal that secure the long term defence of the country should not be put away. Without Trident and a secure existence, no welfare state would exist at all.

No I wouldn't leave the country - this is my homeland, the land of my ancestors. I would however be active in supporting opposition to him.

Ok, you aren't hot on East Coast. Why not look over to our friends in Germany and the success of Deutsche Bahn, which owns some of the franchises here? In fact, why not look to them as a model for public transport in general. What we have in this country that has let the free market take over transport is a very poor relative by comparison.

The German model, a private company with the state as the sole shareholder, eliminates the problem of direct meddling by politicians but makes the company accountable to the public. What we have here allows people to be charged an arm and a leg for unreliable service.


Posted from TSR Mobile

This is unbelievably stupid thinking.

Even with 20,000 more police on the streets you will never prevent someone jumping in a lorry and driving through a crowded street.

The way you stop it is to invest in counter-terrorism and the Tories have been doing that. Wake up !

You have a great deal to learn about politics and the way the country operates.

Your vote, your belief that you have a choice, is pure illusion. The system itself is rigged, crooked such that you can never win. Whoever you vote for, the same people still run the show regardless, and those people are unelected.

You say you are voting Labour based on policy, but the truth is, you don't get to vote on policies. You can't vote whether the railways are nationalised or privatised unless the government gives you a referendum on the issue.

The past catastrophic Labour governments under BLiar and Brown showed us clearly that voting for a party because you believe in its policies or manifesto is pure folly. No party will live up to it's promises or policies because no party runs the country. Which ever party wins the election is just the next party that MUST do the bidding of the real people running the show.

BLiar took us into illegal wars and failed miserably. Brown virtually bankrupted the country with his crazy spending and giving banks too much freedom. All part of a much wider agenda.

Labour isn't going to get into government for a long time to come. I fully expect the party to split this year.



No-one is destroying people's futures by not voting for Labour. That's a ridiculous notion. Protecting the country from looney hard left socialism will however help people in the long run. The UK can not afford to have a socialist government spending other people's money frivolously until it runs out.

The last Labour government left us with a 150bn deficit which the Tories have now reduced by 50bn. There is still a great deal more to do to redress the damage Brown left us with.

That the vast majority of Brits realise that is testimony to their understanding of the situation and the truth. The Tories were only 8 seats short of a majority, a tiny number but nevertheless still achieve 318 seats and the most votes.

Labour performed absolutely dismally. They had the help of the young inexperienced votes (largely voting for free tuition fees) and they had the help of Remainers who used the election as a tool to try and scupper BrExit. Yet despite those 2 crutches, Labour could still only manage a crappy 262 seats which is pretty much no more than they achieved in 2010 where they got 258 seats but did so without any young vote or tactical BrExit voting.

The truth is then, that Labour have gone backwards, the 262 seat result is abysmal under these special circumstances.

Much as you would like people to conveniently put aside Corbyn's reprehensible history and Abbotts incompetence, the majority of Brits just are not going to. We really aren't that stupid. We don't want a Marxist country run by a soviet communist style leader.

Labour needs to oust Corbyn and Abbott sharpish but I sense the denial of the election disaster runs deep and people would rather bury their heads in the sand and keep pretending that Labour somehow won.

They didn't. They lost hugely and did so because there just isn't a credible party at present. Doesn't matter what the policies are, Labour are unfit to govern with its current leadership in place.