Great Western Coffee Shop

From the BBC's party policy guide at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50291676
I have scraped transport policy for the GB parties and present them here in alphabetic party order

On Transport Policy - who would you vote for?   
A totally optional poll (and remember polls here are secret; even the forum admins have no tools ....)

Brexit Party

Scrap HS2, but invest in road and rail projects across the regions
Free wi-fi on all public transport

Conservative

£25bn to upgrade key roads over the next five years
£220m to improve bus services across England
Scrap the rail franchise system
New veterans' railcard, giving those who have served in the armed forces a third off rail fares

Green

Scrap HS2 and use the money to invest in new rail links in rural areas and better integrated transport options in towns and cities
Invest £15bn a year in a "sustainable transport revolution", including the creation of new railway lines in the North and national cycleways
Give local authorities more power over bus and local train services

Independent Group for Change

Support new capacity on rail continuing with the HS2 line connecting the East Midlands and Yorkshire
Improve bus services by allowing areas beyond London to have similar powers to regulate

Labour

Bring rail services back into public ownership as franchises expire
Cap rail fares to prevent above-inflation increases
Extend free bus travel to all under-25s
Restore 3,000 bus routes and give more local control of bus services
Invest in transport infrastructure including building "Crossrail for the North"

Liberal Democrat

Programme of investment in rail travel, including new stations, lines and trains
Allow public sector bodies and mutual groups, involving staff and passengers, to bid for rail franchises
Investment in green transport, including buses, cycling and walking

Plaid Cymru

Introduce a Wales-wide smart card ticketing service for public transport passengers
Make rail fares more affordable, secure new trains, open new stations and consider re-opening railway lines across Wales
Introduce additional vehicle electricity charging points across Wales
Re-regulate buses
Roads investment to focus on improving links between north and south Wales as well as along the main east-west transport corridors

Scottish Nationalist Party

Invest £500m in new bus infrastructure
Ensure there can be a "robust" public sector bid for the next ScotRail franchise
Invest over £1bn annually in public transport and other sustainable transport options
Reduce emissions from Scotland’s railways to zero by 2035
Introduce initiative to ensure more people choose to make everyday journeys on foot or by bike

UKIP

Scrap HS2
Oppose the expansion of Heathrow Airport
Scrap road tolls
Abandon the current rollout of smart motorways

Although I have included the Scottish Nationalist's policy in this post for completeness and comparison, I have not offered them as a choice for our members as (to my knowledge) they are not fielding any candidates in the constituencies covered by this forum.

With the exception of the Green Party, Northern Ireland has a totally different set of parties and its rail system is not part of the UK national setup.  Because of that, I have not diluted the list above with the policies of the likes of the UUP, Sinn Fein, DUP, SDLP, etc.

………….thinking of one of our esteemed members in particular, what are each of the parties positions on buffets?

Who knows, in some constituencies* it may tip the balance!  ;)


(*well one, anyway!)

I'm not sure why but the suggestion that broadgage might tip the balance brings something else to mind other than election results.

The Conservatives were talking about cutting fuel duty  before the budget that didn't take place.  That would be totally counter productive,  making public transport less competitive with driving and giving the greatest benefit to those with the largest and least fuel efficient vehicles.

ISTR that the Labour party are in favour of buffets. Not I suspect out of concern for passengers, but because the RMT want buffets due to the employment of union members therein. Labour tend to agree with the trades unions.

I think that both the Welsh nationalists and the Scottish nationalists have spoken in favour of "better quality trains" including improved capacity, facing seats at tables, more luggage space and better on board facilities. Not SPECIFICLY  mentioning buffets, but support for same seems a reasonable inference.

AFAIK the green party have not mentioned it. But might I suspect prefer that the space be used for cycles. Any buffet that WAS provided would probably have to serve only lettuce and carrot juice, and MAYBE organic beer, but only one bottle per customer.

The conservative MPs in this area have been very critical of the IETs including the lack of buffets, but that might be the views of a handful and not representative of party policy.

Difficult I would like a cross between Green and Lib Dem really.  Thing is if HS2 is cancelled the the WCML and potentially other routes to the North will become so crowded that the fares will rise to beyond extortionate to limit demand and potentially local services will suffer to make way for long distance capacity. 

However the Green policies about electrification and local transport are great. 

I'd probably vote on cycling policy rather than rail policy. Rail is ok-though-with-problems right now, while the state of cycling infrastructure is terrible. Rail requires billions to be sorted out, while you can get big modal shift to cycling with comparative small change.

But that said... the only national politician who has ever done anything of significance for cycling is Boris Johnson, when he introduced protected cycleways in his former incarnation as Mayor of London. And even if he were to announce a programme of protected cycleways all over Britain, plus reopening 500 miles of railways to passengers, sorting out ticketing and refitting Voyagers, I'd still have qualms about voting for him!

I know not to what you could possibly be refering :-X

I note the entry in "(won't vote)"

It should be a legal duty to cast your vote in an election - even if it is for 'none of the above' (i.e. a spoiled ballot paper). It is no wonder we currently have the chaos we have when an election can be won with barely 30% of the electorate having voted for that party/outcome.

I note that certain members of 'the elite' have been suggesting that parents 'prevent their children from voting'.

 >:(  >:(  >:(  >:(

I think it's actually harder than I'd expected to isolate transport from other policies and one's own stance on those. For instance, the Greens and TIGs both want to give more transport planning powers to local bodies – this will be affected by one's view of local/central power balance, the Conservatives' plan to introduce a veterans' railcard interacts with the voter's opinions on militarism, the SNP and PC policies are obviously mostly focused on their particular countries, while economics affects nearly all of it.

Just to be clear, grahame's question was 'who would you vote for on transport policy alone'. On that basis, I would not vote. In reality, there will be other issues at play, and I can assure you that I will vote, even if I have to hold my nose whilst doing so.

I am in agreement with the more senior RS around here ;)

I do not believe that it is sensile to vote for any party on the basis of one manifesto promise alone, especially when one considers that both major party's records on actually implementing manifesto pledges is woeful to put it at its politest. And even if they do implement them, policies have a nasty habit of biting their backsides later when the true implications come to light (eg austerity cuts, Windrush generation, and more recently Brexit)

I'm not sure I would do it on a lib dem manifesto pledage either, especially after what happened over tuition fees...

As electric cars become a bigger and bigger proportion of the total, fuel duty is going to raise a smaller proportion of the funds needed to maintain the road network.  Clearly it's impossible to tax electricity used to power cars differently to electricity used in the home.  So presumably there will need to be some new funding model - maybe including 'smart' forms of road pricing.  Wouldn't it makes sense if you had to pay a premium to drive your car in cities during the morning and evening rush hour?

Here's a manifesto statement for you:

Source: Labour Party (http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1964/1964-labour-manifesto.shtml)

For the sake of fairness, I've quoted this in full. It's the Labour Party Manifesto from 1964.

Between the Beeching Report and the end of 1964 (Labour came to power in the October), 2224 km of routes had been closed. If closures were halted, it can only have been for the blink of an eye, for Labour went on to close a further 4143 km between 1965 and 1970 when the Tories returned, by which time the axe was more or less blunted.

Of course it was the Tories who hired Beeching, and the Labour manifesto didn't say they were going to halt the cuts completely. But surely few people reading it would have imagined that far more lines would be axed under Labour than were closed under the Tories.

So who do we believe this time?

Not impossible. Power at the various sorts of dedicated chargers can obviously be taxed differently. For charging from a domestic circuit, it should be possible for the vehicle itself to record how much power it has taken on, when and where and to allocate this to the appropriate bill. There is historical precedent for this; in some countries, electricity for lighting had a lower rate than for general power, though I don't think this was ever done in UK. Whether there's political will to coordinate the manufacturers, power cos and other relevant parties, and even more so to accustom EV owners to paying tax on their fuel, is another matter. So not impossible but probably impractical, at least for the foreseeable future.

I am not aware of electricity ever being supplied for lighting at a lower rate than for power.
This is a relatively new urban myth.
Historically, electricity for lighting and for power WERE separately metered in the UK and some other places, but the "lighting" rate was always HIGHER.

Returning to the charging of electric vehicles, I doubt that charging a different rate would be viable, people will simply slow charge from a standard 13 amp socket. Or connect a fast charger to the cooker or shower circuit.

Isn't electricity a form of power? So it can't be supplied for the use of power.

Strictly speaking you are correct, however "electricity for lighting" and "electricity for power" were the generally used and generally accepted terms.
The "power" rate was invariably lower.

I think in Italy the lighting rate was cheaper. But it doesn't matter which way round it was.