Starmergeddon: They Came And Ate Us

[inactionman]

Would HS2 help that much? There's only Glasgow and Edinburgh as mainland UK destinations from City airport and HS2 would mainly improve the Glasgow side.

They can only land smaller commercial airplanes there (I think up to Airbus A318 size, but many will be turboprop), so it's not going to be long-haul, but there are many short hop flights to continental Europe.

I will admit I've only ever flown to City from Edinburgh which is certainly viable by train, I assume there's many travellers from Glasgow who would forgo flights if the train was faster (and cheaper)

No we'd need a hugely expanded channel tunnel and high speed rail infrastructure into and across Europe. Most City flights are to Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Milan, Dublin etc.

The big miss with the channel tunnel is it not taking sleeper trains. They were dying out when it was designed and built so you can't really blame them. But if I was able to take a sleeper to Amsterdam, Paris, even Berlin, I'd do that.

Irritatingly, they originally built a fair few of them - they eventually decided they weren't economically viable so were mothballed and eventually sold them to Canada's viarail. I've slept on one between Toronto and Quebec.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightstar_(train)

[Biffer]

No we'd need a hugely expanded channel tunnel and high speed rail infrastructure into and across Europe. Most City flights are to Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Milan, Dublin etc.

The big miss with the channel tunnel is it not taking sleeper trains. They were dying out when it was designed and built so you can't really blame them. But if I was able to take a sleeper to Amsterdam, Paris, even Berlin, I'd do that.

Irritatingly, they originally built a fair few of them - they eventually decided they weren't economically viable so were mothballed and eventually sold them to Canada's viarail. I've slept on one between Toronto and Quebec.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightstar_(train)

I think there are also certain things about train length, safety and the terms under which Eurostar have a license that make it really difficult.

[Hal Jordan]

Anyone for a monorail?

[Biffer]

Anyone for a monorail?

It's a fine to only say it once. Monorail, monorail, monorail.

[Sandstorm]

Anyone for a monorail?

It's a fine to only say it once. Monorail, monorail, monorail.

"Batman's a scientist....."

[Tichtheid]

I'm not convinced "forced" is the right word. I haven't flown for 16 years.

It depends on time and money. I much prefer travelling to Glasgow by train, but I don’t always have £120+ and 10+ hours available for the round trip.

Likewise I would love to always head to the continent by train but it just isn’t practical right now.

The fares being far far too high is bang on, but how does the rail travel time compare with getting to the airport, checking in way before your flight, waiting for your bags at the other end and then getting from the airport to your destination?

Most business trips can be cancelled nowadays I would have thought.

Full Disclosure - although I’d love to be on a moral high horse on this I haven’t flown for 16 year because I developed a sudden fear of it whilst on Minorca, then a few days after I started thinking this way there was a fatal crash at Madrid, so I swore off flying.

[Slick]

I'm not convinced "forced" is the right word. I haven't flown for 16 years.

It depends on time and money. I much prefer travelling to Glasgow by train, but I don’t always have £120+ and 10+ hours available for the round trip.

Likewise I would love to always head to the continent by train but it just isn’t practical right now.

The fares being far far too high is bang on, but how does the rail travel time compare with getting to the airport, checking in way before your flight, waiting for your bags at the other end and then getting from the airport to your destination?

Most business trips can be cancelled nowadays I would have thought.

Full Disclosure - although I’d love to be on a moral high horse on this I haven’t flown for 16 year because I developed a sudden fear of it whilst on Minorca, then a few days after I started thinking this way there was a fatal crash at Madrid, so I swore off flying.

From Edinburgh to central London (flying into LHR, LCY or LGW) it's pretty much exactly the same time in my experience.

[dpedin]

It depends on time and money. I much prefer travelling to Glasgow by train, but I don’t always have £120+ and 10+ hours available for the round trip.

Likewise I would love to always head to the continent by train but it just isn’t practical right now.

The fares being far far too high is bang on, but how does the rail travel time compare with getting to the airport, checking in way before your flight, waiting for your bags at the other end and then getting from the airport to your destination?

Most business trips can be cancelled nowadays I would have thought.

Full Disclosure - although I’d love to be on a moral high horse on this I haven’t flown for 16 year because I developed a sudden fear of it whilst on Minorca, then a few days after I started thinking this way there was a fatal crash at Madrid, so I swore off flying.

From Edinburgh to central London (flying into LHR, LCY or LGW) it's pretty much exactly the same time in my experience.

Time of total journey is probably the same but the train is far more relaxing and easier. For me, going Edinburgh to London, I jump on bus at top of my road into Waverely (free using my bus pass) and then grab coffee and paper before stepping onto train, find seat then read/drink/sleep, get off train at Kings Cross then go for pint at The Boot near Kings Cross to wait for my son. Edinburgh airport is a shit hole - I get bus at top of road to airport (free with bus pass) then would expect queues at check in for luggage, queues at security, queues at gate then queues for baggage at LHR, queues for train to central London, etc. Give me train every day.

[Slick]

The fares being far far too high is bang on, but how does the rail travel time compare with getting to the airport, checking in way before your flight, waiting for your bags at the other end and then getting from the airport to your destination?

Most business trips can be cancelled nowadays I would have thought.

Full Disclosure - although I’d love to be on a moral high horse on this I haven’t flown for 16 year because I developed a sudden fear of it whilst on Minorca, then a few days after I started thinking this way there was a fatal crash at Madrid, so I swore off flying.

From Edinburgh to central London (flying into LHR, LCY or LGW) it's pretty much exactly the same time in my experience.

Time of total journey is probably the same but the train is far more relaxing and easier. For me, going Edinburgh to London, I jump on bus at top of my road into Waverely (free using my bus pass) and then grab coffee and paper before stepping onto train, find seat then read/drink/sleep, get off train at Kings Cross then go for pint at The Boot near Kings Cross to wait for my son. Edinburgh airport is a shit hole - I get bus at top of road to airport (free with bus pass) then would expect queues at check in for luggage, queues at security, queues at gate then queues for baggage at LHR, queues for train to central London, etc. Give me train every day.

100% agree, much rather take the train. But sometimes there can be £100-£200 difference which I can't justify

[Paddington Bear]

I'm not convinced "forced" is the right word. I haven't flown for 16 years.

It depends on time and money. I much prefer travelling to Glasgow by train, but I don’t always have £120+ and 10+ hours available for the round trip.

Likewise I would love to always head to the continent by train but it just isn’t practical right now.

The fares being far far too high is bang on, but how does the rail travel time compare with getting to the airport, checking in way before your flight, waiting for your bags at the other end and then getting from the airport to your destination?

Most business trips can be cancelled nowadays I would have thought.

Full Disclosure - although I’d love to be on a moral high horse on this I haven’t flown for 16 year because I developed a sudden fear of it whilst on Minorca, then a few days after I started thinking this way there was a fatal crash at Madrid, so I swore off flying.

I get your point. To Edinburgh I think the train tends to be quicker all in, and certainly more pleasant. The extra hour up to Glasgow makes flying quicker IMO, even with the fact there isn’t an airport rail link is an absolute ballache.

[Paddington Bear]

Anyone for a monorail?

As a renowned expert in the field said, there’s nothing on earth like a genuine bona fide electrified six car monorail

[Biffer]

The fares being far far too high is bang on, but how does the rail travel time compare with getting to the airport, checking in way before your flight, waiting for your bags at the other end and then getting from the airport to your destination?

Most business trips can be cancelled nowadays I would have thought.

Full Disclosure - although I’d love to be on a moral high horse on this I haven’t flown for 16 year because I developed a sudden fear of it whilst on Minorca, then a few days after I started thinking this way there was a fatal crash at Madrid, so I swore off flying.

From Edinburgh to central London (flying into LHR, LCY or LGW) it's pretty much exactly the same time in my experience.

Time of total journey is probably the same but the train is far more relaxing and easier. For me, going Edinburgh to London, I jump on bus at top of my road into Waverely (free using my bus pass) and then grab coffee and paper before stepping onto train, find seat then read/drink/sleep, get off train at Kings Cross then go for pint at The Boot near Kings Cross to wait for my son. Edinburgh airport is a shit hole - I get bus at top of road to airport (free with bus pass) then would expect queues at check in for luggage, queues at security, queues at gate then queues for baggage at LHR, queues for train to central London, etc. Give me train every day.

I pretty much always take the train in the UK now for work, it's company policy. Bit of a pain getting to Oxford (into London Kings Cross, over to Paddington, train to Didcot) but to be honest it's a pain getting there from Heathrow.

I'm through Edinburgh airport a lot for overseas trips though, and the only time it's a pain is if I put bags in the hold. Other than that I find it pretty easy. Heathrow on the other hand is the 5th circle of Hell. What an absolute dogshit of an airport - and yes I know that someone in London will pop up and say 'i think T5 is great' but you've never had to transfer through that steaming pile of horseshit.

[Biffer]

Anyone for a monorail?

As a renowned expert in the field said, there’s nothing on earth like a genuine bona fide electrified six car monorail

What about us workshy slobs?

[inactionman]

I'm not convinced "forced" is the right word. I haven't flown for 16 years.

It depends on time and money. I much prefer travelling to Glasgow by train, but I don’t always have £120+ and 10+ hours available for the round trip.

Likewise I would love to always head to the continent by train but it just isn’t practical right now.

The fares being far far too high is bang on, but how does the rail travel time compare with getting to the airport, checking in way before your flight, waiting for your bags at the other end and then getting from the airport to your destination?

Most business trips can be cancelled nowadays I would have thought.

Full Disclosure - although I’d love to be on a moral high horse on this I haven’t flown for 16 year because I developed a sudden fear of it whilst on Minorca, then a few days after I started thinking this way there was a fatal crash at Madrid, so I swore off flying.

For London, it depends where you're going.

Flying into Heathrow makes sense for Twickenham given it's west of the city - a few stops on district underground, then bus

City is close to the centre but is a bit of a hike to get out West.

Stansted and Luton aren't London - Stansted is closer to Cambridge.

City is the exception for London airports in that it's actually the city (duh), if you're not going to Twickenham I'd say the direct train would be quicker for the others.

[Sandstorm]

Anyone for a monorail?

As a renowned expert in the field said, there’s nothing on earth like a genuine bona fide electrified six car monorail

What about us workshy slobs?

You'll be given cushy jobs in the Scottish Parliament

[robmatic]

I'm not convinced "forced" is the right word. I haven't flown for 16 years.

It depends on time and money. I much prefer travelling to Glasgow by train, but I don’t always have £120+ and 10+ hours available for the round trip.

Likewise I would love to always head to the continent by train but it just isn’t practical right now.

The fares being far far too high is bang on, but how does the rail travel time compare with getting to the airport, checking in way before your flight, waiting for your bags at the other end and then getting from the airport to your destination?

Most business trips can be cancelled nowadays I would have thought.

Full Disclosure - although I’d love to be on a moral high horse on this I haven’t flown for 16 year because I developed a sudden fear of it whilst on Minorca, then a few days after I started thinking this way there was a fatal crash at Madrid, so I swore off flying.

I always found the East Coast Main Line to be about the same time for trips between London and Edinburgh and more relaxed (I severely dislike airports).

However, when I lived in Edinburgh, I would go visit my brother in Cardiff sometimes and that was a ballache by train. Seven hours on a good day.

[Hal Jordan]

I think it's a testament to how good classic Simpsons was that what might otherwise be an obscure reference to a TV episode from 1993 resonates with so many people.

Yes.

1993.

Fuck, we're old.

[petej]

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/hs2-t ... ll-3240475

The headline here should be bean counter fuckwits make terrible cost saving decision that will cost way more than sticking to the original plan.

[Paddington Bear]

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/hs2-t ... ll-3240475

The headline here should be bean counter fuckwits make terrible cost saving decision that will cost way more than sticking to the original plan.

I sometimes wonder if I’m too cynical, but this stinks of corruption. Refits after contracts are signed are how you make proper money off government contracts. They were never viably going to be able to operate with one door per carriage, and were always going to be used on the existing network. So why wasn’t this included in the contract!

[petej]

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/hs2-t ... ll-3240475

The headline here should be bean counter fuckwits make terrible cost saving decision that will cost way more than sticking to the original plan.

I sometimes wonder if I’m too cynical, but this stinks of corruption. Refits after contracts are signed are how you make proper money off government contracts. They were never viably going to be able to operate with one door per carriage, and were always going to be used on the existing network. So why wasn’t this included in the contract!

If HS2 and hs1 use standard European sizing it probably makes the design and manufacturing cheaper. If it was assumed early on that they would be used on high speed lines only I can easily see how the decision was made.

[MungoMan]

Half true, half not. We have the people and the workforce to build excellent rail infrastructure, it just takes forever because of the regulatory structure so we get far less bang for our buck. Some of the HS2 engineering near me is superb, Lizzie Line gets enough plaudits to be self evident, even on a smaller scale the new station at Brent Cross is very well done.

Blaming the regulators is easy so everyone does it. In my experience the regulators are fine and best dealt with directly but if you don't have a project with useful specialist equivalents you are fucked. You end up dealing with legal people who frequently interpret regulation insanely/impractically and consultancies making it unnecessarily complex (I guess that is what you mean by regulatory structures). If you have someone who will smash through that, the regulator is typically fine.

The mess of ownership, responsibilities and structures around Hinckley C makes it near impossible to come to sensible engineering decisions at times so not surprised the ONR would be twitchy particularly after the first person they speak to will be a project manager type who might have tried to bluff.

On crossrail - TFL have a enough people experienced at actually doing things (and booted useless people) which will help massively. Elsewhere we've kind of lost that practical underlying understanding of dealing with real things and owning it. New government will help by actually making decisions.

I'm just pissed off at work having had a package of work held up for no fucking reason for four months by various commercial and financial departments incompetence or as others call them the disabling functions.

Yeah you’re right about what I mean by regulatory structures. Our system encourages the rights of locals to peace and quiet over critical infrastructure, encourages pandering to NIMBYs and MPs attempting to appease them, and requires those trying to build something to prepare for judicial review. Judicial review is not there to stop a nuclear power plant or a railway being built! We cut through that we eliminate tonnes of the nonsense you’re referring to

Yep. It is there to verify the limits of the law.

Decide to build, then do so.

It is the apologia that needs to be robust to JR.

[Paddington Bear]

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/hs2-t ... ll-3240475

The headline here should be bean counter fuckwits make terrible cost saving decision that will cost way more than sticking to the original plan.

I sometimes wonder if I’m too cynical, but this stinks of corruption. Refits after contracts are signed are how you make proper money off government contracts. They were never viably going to be able to operate with one door per carriage, and were always going to be used on the existing network. So why wasn’t this included in the contract!

If HS2 and hs1 use standard European sizing it probably makes the design and manufacturing cheaper. If it was assumed early on that they would be used on high speed lines only I can easily see how the decision was made.

The plan was always for HS2 to link to conventional rail, as the full plan had links to the WCML north of Manchester and would have joined the ECML near York IIRC, but always aimed to run services to Glasgow and Newcastle

[petej]

I sometimes wonder if I’m too cynical, but this stinks of corruption. Refits after contracts are signed are how you make proper money off government contracts. They were never viably going to be able to operate with one door per carriage, and were always going to be used on the existing network. So why wasn’t this included in the contract!

If HS2 and hs1 use standard European sizing it probably makes the design and manufacturing cheaper. If it was assumed early on that they would be used on high speed lines only I can easily see how the decision was made.

The plan was always for HS2 to link to conventional rail, as the full plan had links to the WCML north of Manchester and would have joined the ECML near York IIRC, but always aimed to run services to Glasgow and Newcastle

Oh well. This is where compartmentalising things as engineer becomes important. Just make sure you didn't sign off on the short sighted stupid decision, document your objections and move on to fixing the current issue caused by a similar stupid decision 3+ years earlier.

[I like neeps]

Sir Keir with his inevitable things are bad actually and we'll need to raise taxes significantly schtick today.

Could've just been honest pre election and told us what we already knew and then started a discussion on where the raised taxes are coming for. Oh well, a missed opportunity for political honesty.

[epwc]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7853gq38p1o

He cancels the chopper!

[sockwithaticket]

Sir Keir with his inevitable things are bad actually and we'll need to raise taxes significantly schtick today.

Could've just been honest pre election and told us what we already knew and then started a discussion on where the raised taxes are coming for. Oh well, a missed opportunity for political honesty.

No he couldn't and you know that. Not that I particularly want to be lied to, but trying to start any sort of public discussion on tax that isn't at the very least "we won't raise taxes" during an election would've meant being sat on the sidelines for another electorial cycle. The collective of the wider electorate has very little attention span for or interest in anything serious.

People who actually pay attention to anything beyond sensationalist headlines are a depressingly small proportion of voters.

It sucks and it means we have a political class who won't talk to us like adults, but why would they when voters routinely indicate they're not up for the conversation?

[Sandstorm]

Sir Keir with his inevitable things are bad actually and we'll need to raise taxes significantly schtick today.

Could've just been honest pre election and told us what we already knew and then started a discussion on where the raised taxes are coming for. Oh well, a missed opportunity for political honesty.

No he couldn't and you know that. Not that I particularly want to be lied to, but trying to start any sort of public discussion on tax that isn't at the very least "we won't raise taxes" during an election would've meant being sat on the sidelines for another electorial cycle. The collective of the wider electorate has very little attention span for or interest in anything serious.

People who actually pay attention to anything beyond sensationalist headlines are a depressingly small proportion of voters.

It sucks and it means we have a political class who won't talk to us like adults, but why would they when voters routinely indicate they're not up for the conversation?

Indeed. Any politician talking about raising taxes during an election campaign is destined to lose. And if you thought Labour weren't going to do it in September, then you're a potato-head.

[Biffer]

Sir Keir with his inevitable things are bad actually and we'll need to raise taxes significantly schtick today.

Could've just been honest pre election and told us what we already knew and then started a discussion on where the raised taxes are coming for. Oh well, a missed opportunity for political honesty.

No he couldn't and you know that. Not that I particularly want to be lied to, but trying to start any sort of public discussion on tax that isn't at the very least "we won't raise taxes" during an election would've meant being sat on the sidelines for another electorial cycle. The collective of the wider electorate has very little attention span for or interest in anything serious.

People who actually pay attention to anything beyond sensationalist headlines are a depressingly small proportion of voters.

It sucks and it means we have a political class who won't talk to us like adults, but why would they when voters routinely indicate they're not up for the conversation?

Indeed. Any politician talking about raising taxes during an election campaign is destined to lose. And if you thought Labour weren't going to do it in September, then you're a potato-head.

What he could have done (and I did say this at the time) was talk about how it was quite obvious that the Tories were deliberately setting things up to undercut a future government, because they knew they were going to lose. They were actively undermining the UK economy for their own political ends.

[Sandstorm]

What he could have done (and I did say this at the time) was talk about how it was quite obvious that the Tories were deliberately setting things up to undercut a future government, because they knew they were going to lose. They were actively undermining the UK economy for their own political ends.

Perhaps, but would it have made any difference? Tories were going to grift until their last day in office & the majority of the media didn't care.

[I like neeps]

Sir Keir with his inevitable things are bad actually and we'll need to raise taxes significantly schtick today.

Could've just been honest pre election and told us what we already knew and then started a discussion on where the raised taxes are coming for. Oh well, a missed opportunity for political honesty.

No he couldn't and you know that. Not that I particularly want to be lied to, but trying to start any sort of public discussion on tax that isn't at the very least "we won't raise taxes" during an election would've meant being sat on the sidelines for another electorial cycle. The collective of the wider electorate has very little attention span for or interest in anything serious.

People who actually pay attention to anything beyond sensationalist headlines are a depressingly small proportion of voters.

It sucks and it means we have a political class who won't talk to us like adults, but why would they when voters routinely indicate they're not up for the conversation?

The Tories weren't going to win the last election if he'd been honest about tax rises, no. He had a generational chance to be honest because the Tories were so hated they had literally no chance anyway and he chose to lie.

The Tories and the Tory press did also talk daily about Labour's tax rises. Nobody listened to them. And it wasn't because labour said they won't raise taxes, it was because people weren't listening to them because as said they hated them.

[Raggs]

Sir Keir with his inevitable things are bad actually and we'll need to raise taxes significantly schtick today.

Could've just been honest pre election and told us what we already knew and then started a discussion on where the raised taxes are coming for. Oh well, a missed opportunity for political honesty.

No he couldn't and you know that. Not that I particularly want to be lied to, but trying to start any sort of public discussion on tax that isn't at the very least "we won't raise taxes" during an election would've meant being sat on the sidelines for another electorial cycle. The collective of the wider electorate has very little attention span for or interest in anything serious.

People who actually pay attention to anything beyond sensationalist headlines are a depressingly small proportion of voters.

It sucks and it means we have a political class who won't talk to us like adults, but why would they when voters routinely indicate they're not up for the conversation?

The Tories weren't going to win the last election if he'd been honest about tax rises, no. He had a generational chance to be honest because the Tories were so hated they had literally no chance anyway and he chose to lie.

The Tories and the Tory press did also talk daily about Labour's tax rises. Nobody listened to them. And it wasn't because labour said they won't raise taxes, it was because people weren't listening to them because as said they hated them.

They weren't going to win, but Labour could have ended up with a lot fewer seats.

[sockwithaticket]

Sir Keir with his inevitable things are bad actually and we'll need to raise taxes significantly schtick today.

Could've just been honest pre election and told us what we already knew and then started a discussion on where the raised taxes are coming for. Oh well, a missed opportunity for political honesty.

No he couldn't and you know that. Not that I particularly want to be lied to, but trying to start any sort of public discussion on tax that isn't at the very least "we won't raise taxes" during an election would've meant being sat on the sidelines for another electorial cycle. The collective of the wider electorate has very little attention span for or interest in anything serious.

People who actually pay attention to anything beyond sensationalist headlines are a depressingly small proportion of voters.

It sucks and it means we have a political class who won't talk to us like adults, but why would they when voters routinely indicate they're not up for the conversation?

The Tories weren't going to win the last election if he'd been honest about tax rises, no. He had a generational chance to be honest because the Tories were so hated they had literally no chance anyway and he chose to lie.

The Tories and the Tory press did also talk daily about Labour's tax rises. Nobody listened to them. And it wasn't because labour said they won't raise taxes, it was because people weren't listening to them because as said they hated them.

Luke Tryl from the More In Common polling organisation was in the media all election talking about what came out of his polling and particularly the focus groups. He explicitly stated on numerous occasions that the '£2000 tax rise under Labour line' had a tremendous amount of cut through. Labour activists said very much the same, that it was something they came up against a lot on the door step. There is a stark, stark difference, between people who actively follow and critically engage with politics and a sizeable majority of the population.

The Tories had no chance of winning, but Labour could very easily have failed to secure a majority and have to think abou trying minority government or a coalition (neither of which I'm actually opposed to). As it is, while they secured a landslide in seats, the margins that secured many of those seats are pretty slim, it wouldn't have taken much to see a lot of them go to a different party.

[I like neeps]

No he couldn't and you know that. Not that I particularly want to be lied to, but trying to start any sort of public discussion on tax that isn't at the very least "we won't raise taxes" during an election would've meant being sat on the sidelines for another electorial cycle. The collective of the wider electorate has very little attention span for or interest in anything serious.

People who actually pay attention to anything beyond sensationalist headlines are a depressingly small proportion of voters.

It sucks and it means we have a political class who won't talk to us like adults, but why would they when voters routinely indicate they're not up for the conversation?

The Tories weren't going to win the last election if he'd been honest about tax rises, no. He had a generational chance to be honest because the Tories were so hated they had literally no chance anyway and he chose to lie.

The Tories and the Tory press did also talk daily about Labour's tax rises. Nobody listened to them. And it wasn't because labour said they won't raise taxes, it was because people weren't listening to them because as said they hated them.

Luke Tryl from the More In Common polling organisation was in the media all election talking about what came out of his polling and particularly the focus groups. He explicitly stated on numerous occasions that the '£2000 tax rise under Labour line' had a tremendous amount of cut through. Labour activists said very much the same, that it was something they came up against a lot on the door step. There is a stark, stark difference, between people who actively follow and critically engage with politics and a sizeable majority of the population.

The Tories had no chance of winning, but Labour could very easily have failed to secure a majority and have to think abou trying minority government or a coalition (neither of which I'm actually opposed to). As it is, while they secured a landslide in seats, the margins that secured many of those seats are pretty slim, it wouldn't have taken much to see a lot of them go to a different party.

So what you're saying is that polling showed a load of people believed Labour would raise taxes and they won a huge majority anyway?

[sockwithaticket]

The Tories weren't going to win the last election if he'd been honest about tax rises, no. He had a generational chance to be honest because the Tories were so hated they had literally no chance anyway and he chose to lie.

The Tories and the Tory press did also talk daily about Labour's tax rises. Nobody listened to them. And it wasn't because labour said they won't raise taxes, it was because people weren't listening to them because as said they hated them.

Luke Tryl from the More In Common polling organisation was in the media all election talking about what came out of his polling and particularly the focus groups. He explicitly stated on numerous occasions that the '£2000 tax rise under Labour line' had a tremendous amount of cut through. Labour activists said very much the same, that it was something they came up against a lot on the door step. There is a stark, stark difference, between people who actively follow and critically engage with politics and a sizeable majority of the population.

The Tories had no chance of winning, but Labour could very easily have failed to secure a majority and have to think abou trying minority government or a coalition (neither of which I'm actually opposed to). As it is, while they secured a landslide in seats, the margins that secured many of those seats are pretty slim, it wouldn't have taken much to see a lot of them go to a different party.

So what you're saying is that polling showed a load of people believed Labour would raise taxes and they won a huge majority anyway?

There's no real point engaging with such wilful misrepresentation.

[I like neeps]

I don't see how I'm misrepresentating that polling and labour door knockers said the tax attacks had cut through and labour still won a huge majority of both things happened.

Another depressingly predictable episode lying in politics is good actually if it's my side who are lying. Not so different from the Tories afterall.

[Hal Jordan]

I'm sure that another round of cuts to services and provisions will fix the economy, after it worked for the last 14 times we tried it

[sockwithaticket]

I don't see how I'm misrepresentating that polling and labour door knockers said the tax attacks had cut through and labour still won a huge majority of both things happened.

Another depressingly predictable episode lying in politics is good actually if it's my side who are lying. Not so different from the Tories afterall.

As mentioned, massive majorities can hide how little of the electorate actually voted for a party. The number of seats Labour has vs. it's proportion of the vote is even more out of whack than Johnson's 2019 win. That Labour won despite the tax lie probably speaks more to just how many people were fed up with the Tories that even such falsehoods appearing to take hold with some people couldn't ultimately prevent Labour claiming the election.

We can never truly know the impact those things had. There's no other world we can monitor where the Tory tax lie didn't enter the electoral arena with all other factors remaining the same in order to calculate whether it did or didn't cost x% of the vote.

I'm a Lib Dem voter because they're the only viable non-Tory option in my constituency. Labour's politics are somewhat close to mine, but they're far from my side. Understanding why, given the state of the UK electorate, politicians shy away from mentioning tax rises during an election is hardly endorsing lying.

[Biffer]

What he could have done (and I did say this at the time) was talk about how it was quite obvious that the Tories were deliberately setting things up to undercut a future government, because they knew they were going to lose. They were actively undermining the UK economy for their own political ends.

Perhaps, but would it have made any difference? Tories were going to grift until their last day in office & the majority of the media didn't care.

Not to the overall situation, but he'd be able to stand up now and say 'This is what we said they were doing. They denied it - how about you ask them about that?'. More difficult for the tories to cry about Labour making things up when they were called out on it in advance.

[Sandstorm]

Not to the overall situation, but he'd be able to stand up now and say 'This is what we said they were doing. They denied it - how about you ask them about that?'. More difficult for the tories to cry about Labour making things up when they were called out on it in advance.

I agree with you. Starmer could have been more vocal, but then he could also have made a mistake too and then that would have been the headlines for 4 days afterwards. Saying nothing and letting the Tories implode worked like a charm.

I really don't care if loons like Neeps think saying nothing is the same as telling a lie.

[I like neeps]

I don't see how I'm misrepresentating that polling and labour door knockers said the tax attacks had cut through and labour still won a huge majority of both things happened.

Another depressingly predictable episode lying in politics is good actually if it's my side who are lying. Not so different from the Tories afterall.

As mentioned, massive majorities can hide how little of the electorate actually voted for a party. The number of seats Labour has vs. it's proportion of the vote is even more out of whack than Johnson's 2019 win. That Labour won despite the tax lie probably speaks more to just how many people were fed up with the Tories that even such falsehoods appearing to take hold with some people couldn't ultimately prevent Labour claiming the election.

We can never truly know the impact those things had. There's no other world we can monitor where the Tory tax lie didn't enter the electoral arena with all other factors remaining the same in order to calculate whether it did or didn't cost x% of the vote.

I'm a Lib Dem voter because they're the only viable non-Tory option in my constituency. Labour's politics are somewhat close to mine, but they're far from my side. Understanding why, given the state of the UK electorate, politicians shy away from mentioning tax rises during an election is hardly endorsing lying.

Like you I'm a lib dem voter because they were the opposition in my seat which until this election has been a Tory stronghold. I think that you're right the seat numbers is a distortion on voter %s because what they do show is a huge effort to vote out the Tories rather than endorse Labour. The idea that the Tories would be able to motivate people to vote for their own sh*t show because Labour are going to raise taxes is for the birds as they tried it and despite polling suggest people did listen ultimately what happened was a total repudiation of the tories.

The Labour leadership like all of us will have known for a long time you don't turn around failing public services with a demographic time bomb attached without higher taxes. Being deliberately dishonest to win an election is a wholehearted endorsement of lying and the debasing of politics we've had under the Tories.

A lot of us have spent more time than maybe we should have discussing the Tory lies (and other sins) on here. Only for it then to be okay for Labour to lie, doesn't make sense to me.