Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?

asydhouse said:
Your straw man's pants are on fire.

The argument is actually that if we don't have them, there is no need for an enemy to attack us first with their own nuclear weapons. Nuclear states would not attack a non-nuclear state, making the place uninhabitable.

If you want to argue that fanatics like ISIS would throw them at us the moment they got hold of them with no regard to consequences, I agree. Therefore we shouldn't waste the fantastic amount of money on replacing them, and austerity is gone in an instant.
Click to expand...

Actually nuclear weapons have only ever been used by a country with them against a country that did not have them so your argument is blown to pieces right there.
 
angrysoba said:
Actually nuclear weapons have only ever been used by a country with them against a country that did not have them so your argument is blown to pieces right there.
Click to expand...
At that time the effects of nuclear weapons in making places uninhabitable was not understood.
 
Craig B said:
At that time the effects of nuclear weapons in making places uninhabitable was not understood.
Click to expand...
Is Hiroshima uninhabitable?

I once worked for an old WWII vet who was stationed in Hiroshima just a few weeks after the bomb was dropped! That was probably way too soon, but Hiroshima wasn't rendered permanently uninhabitable. Maybe it's different with hydrogen bombs, I don't know.
 
2638955f7f70188d5d.jpg
 
Darat said:
Well for one he thinks the railways should be renationalised....
Click to expand...

Has he happened to mention how much he thinks it might cost to buy them back? Or did that little detail just slip his mind......
 
WildCat said:
Is Hiroshima uninhabitable?

I once worked for an old WWII vet who was stationed in Hiroshima just a few weeks after the bomb was dropped! That was probably way too soon, but Hiroshima wasn't rendered permanently uninhabitable. Maybe it's different with hydrogen bombs, I don't know.
Click to expand...

This was an interesting article on the subject: http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and...out-the-danger-of-excessive-fear-of-radiation

I don't think this absolves anyone of having to tangle with the moral questions of dropping them in the first place - but the lesson here is the radioactive legacy is less than popularly expected...
 
MikeG said:
Has he happened to mention how much he thinks it might cost to buy them back? Or did that little detail just slip his mind......
Click to expand...

Probably - you know those leftists! Such muddled minds!

its amazing they can tie their own shoes
 
MikeG said:
Has he happened to mention how much he thinks it might cost to buy them back? Or did that little detail just slip his mind......
Click to expand...
It will also save the taxpayer quite a bit over the years, as the private railways are more generously subsidised than the state owned undertaking was.

As to the traveller: compare Italian state rail fares with UK private ones! It's beyond belief!
 
Pixel42 said:
IIRC he's going to wait until current contracts expire. So nothing.
Click to expand...

Many of them are 15 year franchises. It's a bit of a stretch to think that Corbyn could be in charge in getting on for 20 years time. And all he would have would be permission to run the services.........and no rolling stock, which belongs to leasing companies, generally, or sometimes to the franchisees.

In general terms, BR was privatised in such a complicated way simply to make it extremely difficult to put it all back together again. It's a dog's dinner of a system, whose principle benefit is that it isn't BR.
 
MikeG said:
Many of them are 15 year franchises. It's a bit of a stretch to think that Corbyn could be in charge in getting on for 20 years time.
Click to expand...

He doesn't need to be in charge until all the franchises run out. What he needs to do is establish a policy that will be continued by his successors.
And all he would have would be permission to run the services.........and no rolling stock, which belongs to leasing companies, generally, or sometimes to the franchisees.

In general terms, BR was privatised in such a complicated way simply to make it extremely difficult to put it all back together again. It's a dog's dinner of a system, whose principle benefit is that it isn't BR.
Click to expand...

This last swipe betrays your partisanship. And it's "principal" in this context, not "principle".
 
MikeG said:
In general terms, BR was privatised in such a complicated way simply to make it extremely difficult to put it all back together again. It's a dog's dinner of a system, whose principle benefit is that it isn't BR.
Click to expand...

I agree that's the way the privatisation looks - make it impossible to stick BR back together.

OTOH it's been argued by Christian Wolmar and others that had BR received anything like the subsidy that privatised rail has, had been allowed to raise money on the open market or been allowed to raise prices like the privatised railways then if anything the transformation in services could have been even better. Christian Wolmar is very pro-rail so I'm sure that there are equal and opposite views.
 
Antony said:
He doesn't need to be in charge until all the franchises run out. What he needs to do is establish a policy that will be continued by his successors.......
Click to expand...

Which in all likelihood would include Conservative as well as Labour governments. The former would simply undo whatever he has done.

This last swipe betrays your partisanship.
Click to expand...

I used to use BR. This is another one of those false memories of a golden age. BR was useless. Utterly useless. The modern replacement costs too much, but is a much, much better service.

And it's "principal" in this context, not "principle".
Click to expand...

Gee thanks.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
I used to use BR. This is another one of those false memories of a golden age. BR was useless. Utterly useless. The modern replacement costs too much, but is a much, much better service.
Click to expand...
That can only be subjective. My memory of BR was not like yours, and I did use it quite a lot. All of my worst experiences on the railways have been post-privatization.
 
An illusion of [rail privatisation] success - ScienceDirect

Britain's railways 'are the most expensive, least comfortable and the least efficient in Europe' - Daily Mail, 2012

... by the 1990s British Rail was very efficient! - Turniprail, despite the name a serious source.

And so on and so on. My anecdotal but very extensive memories of BR are entirely favourable compared to the current shambles, though I've been away for several years. Has it got better?

eta: However, of course re-nationalising is easier said than done.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
I used to use BR. This is another one of those false memories of a golden age. BR was useless. Utterly useless. The modern replacement costs too much, but is a much, much better service.
Click to expand...

My experiences are not consistent with yours. I've commuted on and off from Bristol to London by train since 1991 and my experience is that:

  • The fastest train used to take 59 minutes, the normal service was 1 hour 19 minutes now each is half an hour slower
  • Late arrivals into London in particular were rare, now 5-10 minutes late is par for the course
  • Ticket costs are significantly higher in real terms
  • There are fewer off-peak services
  • It's the same rolling stock

There are a couple of positive points, specifically airplane style seating and power points on board but that's it.

Now some of the problems (like late arrivals) are no doubt caused by increased traffic. I haven't mentioned overcrowding because that's also a function of greater popularity (although the non-stop Bristol service wouldn't have the Reading/Didcot/Swindon customers on it) and so would likely have occurred regardless.

I am comparing the low point of BR to the high point (so far) of post-privatisation. Who can say what would have happened if BR had the levels of investment and subsidy that the private rail companies have enjoyed.

I get a slower, less frequent, less reliable and more expensive service. :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom