The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
That will mean high salaries for unionised employees, frozen fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
Compared to the current system of high salaries for managers and consultants, high and complex fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure (think CrossCountry four coach trains).
I remember how shit British Rail was.
Do you?
I remember it being better. Comfortable seats in trains with sufficient carriages, pulled by a proper locomotive. Carriages with compartments and side corridors. Windows that opened. Under British Rail I could get a sleeper to Bristol, Plymouth, Birmingham and Inverness from Glasgow. Through trains to a much wider range of stations. Restaurant Cars. Much more important as a passenger than maximising profits for foreign owned private companies.
All well and good except the train rarely actually arrived in my experience. May have been able to book a sleeper but mostly meant you slept on a platform bench
Franchising has failed. Even the Tories, who came up with this moronic dog’s breakfast, admit it has failed.
Five - or is it six? - regional franchises are now in public hands because the shitbox privateers ran the service like a primary school Brio track and either cried off their contract or got sacked for being fucking useless clowns.
The track was renationalised several blue moons ago because the corporate fat controllers who ran it were profiteering twats who blamed each other daily rather than take any responsibility themselves, and put cash before country.
So failed a concept is it that even those famous hard leftwingers Peter Hitchens, Isabel Oakeshott and Arron Banks favour a wholesale renationalisation of whatever scraps are left in the private sector.
Only on PB - only on PB! - do I hear people go out to bat for this abject national embarrassment.
David Lammy has suggested that a Labour government will pursue a formal defence relationship with the EU.
And how does that sit with NATO, David?
An elephant trap for Labour to wander into.
Fine I would think. We already now have a formal defence relationship with Ukraine. As do France and Germany.
Why not the EU ?
Because I don't trust the EU institutions, their treaties and their dogma as far as I can throw them.
I'm fine with a multilateral treaty with the countries themselves.
With respect, that's your problem, rather than a real one.
Not really, since there's no EU military yet.
Its one area where quite frankly, the EU is pissweak and irrelevant.
Nor is there going to be one anytime soon, thank goodness. The Poles haven't just spent a fortune upgrading their military just to hand the keys over to someone else.
Fun personal anecdote. I asked a couple of the Poles I know. They are your liberal, democratic, pro EU types. @Leon would describe them as woke.
They were unhesitating in that in any EU military structure, the control should be (a) who pays most. (b) withdrawable if required for national defence.
I wonder how Germany and France would take to this?
David Lammy has suggested that a Labour government will pursue a formal defence relationship with the EU.
And how does that sit with NATO, David?
An elephant trap for Labour to wander into.
Fine I would think. We already now have a formal defence relationship with Ukraine. As do France and Germany.
Why not the EU ?
Because I don't trust the EU institutions, their treaties and their dogma as far as I can throw them.
I'm fine with a multilateral treaty with the countries themselves.
With respect, that's your problem, rather than a real one.
Not really, since there's no EU military yet.
Its one area where quite frankly, the EU is pissweak and irrelevant.
Nor is there going to be one anytime soon, thank goodness. The Poles haven't just spent a fortune upgrading their military just to hand the keys over to someone else.
Fun personal anecdote. I asked a couple of the Poles I know. They are your liberal, democratic, pro EU types. @Leon would describe them as woke.
They were unhesitating in that in any EU military structure, the control should be (a) who pays most. (b) withdrawable if required for national defence.
I wonder how Germany and France would take to this?
France would be fine with it if it was under french control, germans would be fine with it if the understanding it would never actually be deployed
Franchising has failed. Even the Tories, who came up with this moronic dog’s breakfast, admit it has failed.
Five - or is it six? - regional franchises are now in public hands because the shitbox privateers ran the service like a primary school Brio track and either cried off their contract or got sacked for being fucking useless clowns.
The track was renationalised several blue moons ago because the corporate fat controllers who ran it were profiteering twats who blamed each other daily rather than take any responsibility themselves, and put cash before country.
So failed a concept is it that even those famous hard leftwingers Peter Hitchens, Isabel Oakeshott and Arron Banks favour a wholesale renationalisation of whatever scraps are left are left in the private sector.
Only on PB - only on PB! - do I hear people go out to bat for this abject national embarrassment.
Renationalise it all, and do it now.
Also not training enough drivers then pissing and moaning when they decide to not partake in 'voluntary' overtime.
David Lammy has suggested that a Labour government will pursue a formal defence relationship with the EU.
And how does that sit with NATO, David?
An elephant trap for Labour to wander into.
Fine I would think. We already now have a formal defence relationship with Ukraine. As do France and Germany.
Why not the EU ?
Because I don't trust the EU institutions, their treaties and their dogma as far as I can throw them.
I'm fine with a multilateral treaty with the countries themselves.
With respect, that's your problem, rather than a real one.
Not really, since there's no EU military yet.
Its one area where quite frankly, the EU is pissweak and irrelevant.
Nor is there going to be one anytime soon, thank goodness. The Poles haven't just spent a fortune upgrading their military just to hand the keys over to someone else.
Fun personal anecdote. I asked a couple of the Poles I know. They are your liberal, democratic, pro EU types. @Leon would describe them as woke.
They were unhesitating in that in any EU military structure, the control should be (a) who pays most. (b) withdrawable if required for national defence.
I wonder how Germany and France would take to this?
I expect both would be pretty happy with that. They spend a lot on defence, albeit not as much per GDP as some of the front line countries. The free riders are not France and Germany.
EDIT: though when comparing percentage of GDP spent on defence we really shouldn’t include countries’ spend on defending distant former colonial outposts or maintaining defence postures in the South China Sea or Middle East. Britain and France (and America) spend a lot on that kind of thing, but it’s not really relevant to the defence of Europe from Russian invasion.
Franchising has failed. Even the Tories, who came up with this moronic dog’s breakfast, admit it has failed.
Five - or is it six? - regional franchises are now in public hands because the shitbox privateers ran the service like a primary school Brio track and either cried off their contract or got sacked for being fucking useless clowns.
The track was renationalised several blue moons ago because the corporate fat controllers who ran it were profiteering twats who blamed each other daily rather than take any responsibility themselves, and put cash before country.
So failed a concept is it that even those famous hard leftwingers Peter Hitchens, Isabel Oakeshott and Arron Banks favour a wholesale renationalisation of whatever scraps are left are left in the private sector.
Only on PB - only on PB! - do I hear people go out to bat for this abject national embarrassment.
Renationalise it all, and do it now.
Also not training enough drivers then pissing and moaning when they decide to not partake in 'voluntary' overtime.
And cancelling trains for that reason, with 20 minutes’ notice, as happened to me the other day. They are a shambles.
And this is why he should man up and go for 2nd May.
Whatever the arguments for and against for Sunak, there is just something ‘right’ about a May general election. Plus it gives the new government a short time to bed in before the summer. Gives a chance of a fresh start with Spring in the air.
None of that if it’s Oct, Nov or worse Jan 2025.
“it gives the new government a short time to bed in”
I don’t think that is remotely part of the calculation. Whoever is in power in the summer will soon be up to their eyebrows with voter anger over the surge in boat crossings, postmasters and mistresses still waiting for fair payouts, and frustration over a mere quarter % cut in interest rates with businesses failing and deeper recession looming.
And some people say the passing over of this poisoned chalice is throwing something valuable away.
Bit by bit Ukrainian forces defeated a Russian offensive in Zaporizhzhia Oblast on Feb. 17, killing 70 troops and injuring 80, the Operational Command West reported on Feb. 18.
The offensive involved 30 pieces of equipment and a “fairly large” number of enemy troops. Ukraine destroyed 18 pieces of Russian equipment, including three tanks, according to the report.
David Lammy has suggested that a Labour government will pursue a formal defence relationship with the EU.
And how does that sit with NATO, David?
An elephant trap for Labour to wander into.
Fine I would think. We already now have a formal defence relationship with Ukraine. As do France and Germany.
Why not the EU ?
Because I don't trust the EU institutions, their treaties and their dogma as far as I can throw them.
I'm fine with a multilateral treaty with the countries themselves.
With respect, that's your problem, rather than a real one.
Not really, since there's no EU military yet.
Its one area where quite frankly, the EU is pissweak and irrelevant.
Nor is there going to be one anytime soon, thank goodness. The Poles haven't just spent a fortune upgrading their military just to hand the keys over to someone else.
Fun personal anecdote. I asked a couple of the Poles I know. They are your liberal, democratic, pro EU types. @Leon would describe them as woke.
They were unhesitating in that in any EU military structure, the control should be (a) who pays most. (b) withdrawable if required for national defence.
I wonder how Germany and France would take to this?
France would be fine with it if it was under french control, germans would be fine with it if the understanding it would never actually be deployed
From past history, the German politicians would be very upset if “minor” nations thought they could run the table.
Franchising has failed. Even the Tories, who came up with this moronic dog’s breakfast, admit it has failed.
Five - or is it six? - regional franchises are now in public hands because the shitbox privateers ran the service like a primary school Brio track and either cried off their contract or got sacked for being fucking useless clowns.
The track was renationalised several blue moons ago because the corporate fat controllers who ran it were profiteering twats who blamed each other daily rather than take any responsibility themselves, and put cash before country.
So failed a concept is it that even those famous hard leftwingers Peter Hitchens, Isabel Oakeshott and Arron Banks favour a wholesale renationalisation of whatever scraps are left are left in the private sector.
Only on PB - only on PB! - do I hear people go out to bat for this abject national embarrassment.
Renationalise it all, and do it now.
Also not training enough drivers then pissing and moaning when they decide to not partake in 'voluntary' overtime.
And cancelling trains for that reason, with 20 minutes’ notice, as happened to me the other day. They are a shambles.
It amuses me how simultaneously people argue how shit the rails are, how inefficient and crap they are etc
And then at the same time, some (not all) of the same people argue how great rail is and how much better it is than roads etc
Its funny how rails are so efficient that they can't operate without humungous subsidies while cars are taxed through the rafters, and so great that their users seem to do nothing but bitch and moan about how shit they are.
David Lammy has suggested that a Labour government will pursue a formal defence relationship with the EU.
And how does that sit with NATO, David?
An elephant trap for Labour to wander into.
Fine I would think. We already now have a formal defence relationship with Ukraine. As do France and Germany.
Why not the EU ?
Because I don't trust the EU institutions, their treaties and their dogma as far as I can throw them.
I'm fine with a multilateral treaty with the countries themselves.
With respect, that's your problem, rather than a real one.
Not really, since there's no EU military yet.
Its one area where quite frankly, the EU is pissweak and irrelevant.
Nor is there going to be one anytime soon, thank goodness. The Poles haven't just spent a fortune upgrading their military just to hand the keys over to someone else.
Fun personal anecdote. I asked a couple of the Poles I know. They are your liberal, democratic, pro EU types. @Leon would describe them as woke.
They were unhesitating in that in any EU military structure, the control should be (a) who pays most. (b) withdrawable if required for national defence.
I wonder how Germany and France would take to this?
I expect both would be pretty happy with that. They spend a lot on defence, albeit not as much per GDP as some of the front line countries. The free riders are not France and Germany.
Under current Polish plans, they are going to have a huge land military, fairly soon. The traditional EU Army concept of a French/German command will knocked sideways by that.
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
David Lammy has suggested that a Labour government will pursue a formal defence relationship with the EU.
And how does that sit with NATO, David?
An elephant trap for Labour to wander into.
Fine I would think. We already now have a formal defence relationship with Ukraine. As do France and Germany.
Why not the EU ?
Because I don't trust the EU institutions, their treaties and their dogma as far as I can throw them.
I'm fine with a multilateral treaty with the countries themselves.
With respect, that's your problem, rather than a real one.
Not really, since there's no EU military yet.
Its one area where quite frankly, the EU is pissweak and irrelevant.
Nor is there going to be one anytime soon, thank goodness. The Poles haven't just spent a fortune upgrading their military just to hand the keys over to someone else.
Fun personal anecdote. I asked a couple of the Poles I know. They are your liberal, democratic, pro EU types. @Leon would describe them as woke.
They were unhesitating in that in any EU military structure, the control should be (a) who pays most. (b) withdrawable if required for national defence.
I wonder how Germany and France would take to this?
I expect both would be pretty happy with that. They spend a lot on defence, albeit not as much per GDP as some of the front line countries. The free riders are not France and Germany.
Under current Polish plans, they are going to have a huge land military, fairly soon. The traditional EU Army concept of a French/German command will knocked sideways by that.
Good, bring them to the top table along with Britain, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Ukraine. Feel free to ignore the freeloaders.
Franchising has failed. Even the Tories, who came up with this moronic dog’s breakfast, admit it has failed.
Five - or is it six? - regional franchises are now in public hands because the shitbox privateers ran the service like a primary school Brio track and either cried off their contract or got sacked for being fucking useless clowns.
The track was renationalised several blue moons ago because the corporate fat controllers who ran it were profiteering twats who blamed each other daily rather than take any responsibility themselves, and put cash before country.
So failed a concept is it that even those famous hard leftwingers Peter Hitchens, Isabel Oakeshott and Arron Banks favour a wholesale renationalisation of whatever scraps are left are left in the private sector.
Only on PB - only on PB! - do I hear people go out to bat for this abject national embarrassment.
Renationalise it all, and do it now.
Also not training enough drivers then pissing and moaning when they decide to not partake in 'voluntary' overtime.
And cancelling trains for that reason, with 20 minutes’ notice, as happened to me the other day. They are a shambles.
It amuses me how simultaneously people argue how shit the rails are, how inefficient and crap they are etc
And then at the same time, some (not all) of the same people argue how great rail is and how much better it is than roads etc
Its funny how rails are so efficient that they can't operate without humungous subsidies while cars are taxed through the rafters, and so great that their users seem to do nothing but bitch and moan about how shit they are.
They also neglect to realise the major fly in the ointment for rail is two things union strikes and network rail....the latter is nationalised and has been for years and unions are something most of those advocating nationalisation are vehement supporters. Most supporters of nationalised rail also seem to be to your to remember the abyss that was british rail
David Lammy has suggested that a Labour government will pursue a formal defence relationship with the EU.
And how does that sit with NATO, David?
An elephant trap for Labour to wander into.
Wasn’t it May’s plan that got kiboshed by Boris? The “Five Eyes” grouping doesn’t conflict with NATO and if done right would make sense - as long as it doesn’t become some bullshit issue where European countries demand that their kit is used to bolster their arms industries it is worth doing.
Edit to add, NORAD exists separate to NATO.
It's not 'worth doing', it's an attempt to eliminate the UK's ability to defend itself independently. It's the EU army, being pushed against the UK's interests and against the wishes of those who voted that we should leave the EU. It's supported by careerist talentless cretins like Lammy who think sucking up to powerful and influential people is the best way to advance their careers. In his case he's probably right, but I have a feeling the approach is falling distinctly out of fashion.
And this is why he should man up and go for 2nd May.
The only people who ever talk about May are non-Tories.
Is that because Tories are too thick to realise, they are exchanging 4 months worth of magic beans, for 50 of their MPs in the next parliament?
I don't think it works like that.
Ignoring spring election - which can only be on one date, 2nd May - does not come with zero cost, if that’s how you thinking it works?
But what do we know from analysing this one? we now know what the high interest rate “inflation medicine” can do, how long does it take now for the medicine to work out of system, how much and how quickly must rates be cut for growth to return? Meanwhile we continue with Ongoing mortgage crisis as voters switch to higher mortgage bills. We know a damning interim covid report is being published before autumn. And we expect surge in illegal channel crossings during summer and autumn. There will be Credibility and morale shattering set of locals for Tories in May, and lots of Opposition fun after that with “squatting” and “frit” narrative (analysis from 1997 shows clinging on cost John Major votes) its just Giving voters even more time and evidence to realise things ain’t getting better.
4 more months or 50 more MPs, that is the trade off here in delaying till autumn, because picking a bad moment to say “economies turned a corner” or bad moment to say “stop the boats” a bad reaction is exactly the reaction you get in that bad moment, rather than what you get when you pick the better moment, is how it works.
Good luck with that Autumn election. 🙂
I do agree that a May election would likely be better. Better for the country, better for the Tory party, better for Rishi personally, and better for how his time in office will be viewed by history.
But set against that is the question of how we get to that point. Going for a May election requires a brave decision to be taken.
And avoiding that decision would be much more in keeping with the current government's modus operandi.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
This was famously highlighted as a by product of the Major Government's privatisation in the mid-90s. The stock is owned by Porterbrook and leased to the TOCs. Its parent companies are Canadian, German and French.
There are right-wingers who claim that the British Empire was a Good Thing in India, because Railways. Though the railways were controlled mostly by British capitalists and much of the profits withdrawn to outside India.
It's nice to see that they are consistent in applying this model to the railways of Great Britain. (Not sure about NI.)
Yeah, it’s not like the railways were put there to benefit the Indians after all.
It's not like the railways were put here to benefit the average Briton either - they were sponsored and built for shareholder profit everywhere. All the Acts of Parliament were private.
This doesn't mean that's a bad thing, or that they were a bad thing; we all benefited.
Debatable in the short-term - there were two railway-mania fuelled crashes in the early decades, where many non-railway people lost their shirts. In the medium and long term; yes, for most of the lines we benefited massively.
The initial build of the railways was an unstructured, chaotic mess. Duplication of routes, convoluted journeys where running rights did not exist, a total lack of joined up thinking and integration.
It had to wait until nationalisation before we had coherence and a single entity providing a true public service.
And then along came John Major and his mates to take us back to square one.
And nationalisation was an absolute disaster. Money thrown at the railways in the 1955 modernisation plan, and much of it went to the wrong places. It's an interesting counter-factual to think what would have happened if the railways had not been nationalised in 1948, and the Big Four paid for their wartime work. Lines would have closed.... but so many?
The move from accrual to cash accounting in the late 60s under Barbara Castle might also be a good one to consider. You can understand why the change was made - the previous 20 years had been such a disaster that something needed to be done to stem the bleeding.
But it meant that the only development projects that got approved were the big-ticket things that a government could crow about - the HST, east coast electrification, etc. The intermediate-level stuff that should have happened in the 70s and 80s - branch line electrification, track realignments to support higher speeds, rolling stock replacement - were ignored.
And it would have meant that the industry wouldn't have been in such desperate need of being recapitalised in the early 90s. You could imagine that privatisation might not have been needed at all - or that it could have been done in a very different way from what actually transpired.
That's probably a factor.
As was one of my bugbears: common carrier status, which was only removed in ?1962?. It should have been removed post WW2, or at the latest on privatisation, as it was clear that road traffic and haulage was increasing massively. It may also have changed some of the more disastrous decisions in the 1955 modernisation plan.
The other thing I don’t get, how the PB hive mind think Primeministers can call General Elections, kind of whimsically. Oh - I have just put my finger out the window, I think I’ll call a general election for next month. Better ring out and get some pizzas in so we can start writing the manifesto this evening. And we’d better think of hiring some people I suppose, and giving them something to do? Probably a good idea to move the budget to earlier, soften the voters up with a few bribes, just before tge campaign and the poll.
Last year they had the choice of May 2nd 2024 or October, and they settled on May 2nd long before Christmas. I’m not going post the whole stack of reasons again why they did this, why the narrative gets worse for Tories in second half of this year not better - though media commentators seem to have caught up now that narrative will get worse not better, especially the element where political scientists now believe, you lose votes not get swingback, when you are seen to be SELFISHLY hanging on too long, thwarting the voters and businesses wishes just to get the uncertainty out the way.
But I’ll flag up just one of the coming difficulties in narrative for the government in the second half of this year, this government knew long before Christmas, boat crossings, they have zilch control over, would be substantially higher this summer and autumn 2024 compared to 2023, for two reasons - the UK government done brilliantly last year on boat crossings, with the deal with Alabanians, which helped show a fall on figures, some tried to say the reduction was down to the weather, but it was down to the Alabanians deal, a quick win and much low lying fruit picked. Unfortunately, it means this years figures will be compared to last years, for direction of travel - no pun intended. Because Europe properly tanked up on med crossings last year, and all historical patterns and modelling show that, in the following summer, after a busy med summer filling Europe up, the English Channel crossings shoot up in consequence.
This government cannot fight a General Election this autumn against, a backdrop of a ramping up in the boat crossings this year they pledged to stop. Simples.
It’s not that May 2nd is “becoming” an option. It’s been May 2nd for months now. 🥱
Let's go through the record.
2019 was a weird one.
2017 absolutely was called on a whim.
2015 was fixed by the FTPA.
2010 was Brown running up to the deadline.
2001 and 2005 were four year elections because Blair knew he was cruising to victory.
1997 was Major running up to the deadline.
1992 was Major (almost) running up to the deadline.
1987 and 1983 were Thatcher knowing she was cruising to victory.
Where is the precedent for a living, breathing PM choosing to call an election they expect to lose?
Attlee 1951 would be the most recent.
And that doesn't do much for Moon's (I hope I'm not being too forward in so calling her) thesis. That wasn't driven by "this is when we get the best result", so much as "don't make life awkward for HMK".
I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Losing 50 seats or more in the next parliament, from getting the election timing wrong, is now far more valuable to Sunak and his party, than a few more months in power.
The bit you have been missing here is as simple as that. Sure a few more months in power, but is that truly more valuable than 50 or more members in the next Parliament?
Go on, answer. Which is more valuable - four more fag end months, or 50 or more MPs?
Rationally, you're right. The Conservatives get their best result by throwing themselves on the tender mercies of the electorate as soon as possible. April is probably better than May.
But.
Every other postwar PM faced with this situation has gone as long as possible, even when it makes things worse for their party in the next Parliament.
Brown did it, Major did it, Callaghan tried to (but lost a VONC), Home did it. Not because they were fools, or badly advised. But you only get to the top in politics by believing that you can make things better. Gambling at poorish odds that you alone can make something happen is a pretty good exemplar of how politicians think.
Rishi is different, but not that different.
I’ll repeat again. It’s not that often when a Generalelection (all one word) comes around when you are 20 points down for a year and a half, and don’t even want to remain in power for your own good - so you can’t compare this to every election, only similar rare situations.
Also, when choosing the date in many past examples, all the reason and analysis could have pointed to waiting till the last moment, for the economy to come right for example - something we know doesn’t apply to this current situation, because Sunak’s five pledges are more likely to go the wrong way over summer and autumn than in right direction, the current election riff “the economy is turning a corner, don’t let flip flop Starmer sink it” half affective today could sound properly naff come autumn, and continued high interest rates hurting the economy. The current technical recession wasn’t predicted - an interest rate induced downtown Q3 this year, is predicted.
Whatever made other struggling governments hold on, the reasoning may have been sound for them doing that, but in this almost unique situation holding on is not the reasoned conclusion. If modelled surge in boat crossings this summer does happen, the already fractious Tory Party will implode will it not - level pegging 16% each with Reform not so fantastical, especially with raft of MPs jumping to Reform as last throw of dice to keep their seat.
Franchising has failed. Even the Tories, who came up with this moronic dog’s breakfast, admit it has failed.
Five - or is it six? - regional franchises are now in public hands because the shitbox privateers ran the service like a primary school Brio track and either cried off their contract or got sacked for being fucking useless clowns.
The track was renationalised several blue moons ago because the corporate fat controllers who ran it were profiteering twats who blamed each other daily rather than take any responsibility themselves, and put cash before country.
So failed a concept is it that even those famous hard leftwingers Peter Hitchens, Isabel Oakeshott and Arron Banks favour a wholesale renationalisation of whatever scraps are left are left in the private sector.
Only on PB - only on PB! - do I hear people go out to bat for this abject national embarrassment.
Renationalise it all, and do it now.
Also not training enough drivers then pissing and moaning when they decide to not partake in 'voluntary' overtime.
And cancelling trains for that reason, with 20 minutes’ notice, as happened to me the other day. They are a shambles.
It amuses me how simultaneously people argue how shit the rails are, how inefficient and crap they are etc
And then at the same time, some (not all) of the same people argue how great rail is and how much better it is than roads etc
Its funny how rails are so efficient that they can't operate without humungous subsidies while cars are taxed through the rafters, and so great that their users seem to do nothing but bitch and moan about how shit they are.
The subsidy for rail takes cars off the road. It's a subsidy for those who must drive more than anyone else. A city like London could not operate without them.
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
It's crazy though. Why is the pricing set up to tie customers to a specific train 3 months out? How is the country well-served by that type of pricing?
And this is why he should man up and go for 2nd May.
The only people who ever talk about May are non-Tories.
Is that because Tories are too thick to realise, they are exchanging 4 months worth of magic beans, for 50 of their MPs in the next parliament?
I don't think it works like that.
Ignoring spring election - which can only be on one date, 2nd May - does not come with zero cost, if that’s how you thinking it works?
But what do we know from analysing this one? we now know what the high interest rate “inflation medicine” can do, how long does it take now for the medicine to work out of system, how much and how quickly must rates be cut for growth to return? Meanwhile we continue with Ongoing mortgage crisis as voters switch to higher mortgage bills. We know a damning interim covid report is being published before autumn. And we expect surge in illegal channel crossings during summer and autumn. There will be Credibility and morale shattering set of locals for Tories in May, and lots of Opposition fun after that with “squatting” and “frit” narrative (analysis from 1997 shows clinging on cost John Major votes) its just Giving voters even more time and evidence to realise things ain’t getting better.
4 more months or 50 more MPs, that is the trade off here in delaying till autumn, because picking a bad moment to say “economies turned a corner” or bad moment to say “stop the boats” a bad reaction is exactly the reaction you get in that bad moment, rather than what you get when you pick the better moment, is how it works.
Good luck with that Autumn election. 🙂
I do agree that a May election would likely be better. Better for the country, better for the Tory party, better for Rishi personally, and better for how his time in office will be viewed by history.
But set against that is the question of how we get to that point. Going for a May election requires a brave decision to be taken.
And avoiding that decision would be much more in keeping with the current government's modus operandi.
The decision was already made (for the reasons you listed) months ago. They are locked into May 2nd now, early budget as springboard etc. The decision is whether to delay it, and find somewhere in autumn or winter that might work instead. That’s now the more difficult decision.
Am I becoming a boring one subject rabbit? I only logged back in because I saw “two state solution is what all us sensible people support” posted and saw red at such stupidity. I’m going to log out and get some sleep.
The oddity in the Yougov questions is that no-one is asked whether Hamas should 'stop and declare a ceasefire'. This is weird.
Curious that none of those endlessly asking for a ceasefire ever ask for Hamas to immediately and unconditionally release all the remaining hostages, as demanded by the ICJ on 24 January.
Such a release would likely make a ceasefire much easier to achieve. Beyond that I don't give a toss about the Middle East.
But I will never vote for a party which abandons British Jews. Or considers them expendable because there are more votes to be obtained from those who want to be horrible to them here.
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
It's crazy though. Why is the pricing set up to tie customers to a specific train 3 months out? How is the country well-served by that type of pricing?
It encourages more price-sensitive and less time-sensitive travellers to travel at quieter times, spreading demand across the day.
There isn't any alternative a majority of Tory MPs back and many in the right are willing to let him and Hunt take the flack for general election defeat so the rightwing can then take over in opposition, indeed the likes of Badenoch want to be Leader of the Opposition not fag end PM now
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
It's crazy though. Why is the pricing set up to tie customers to a specific train 3 months out? How is the country well-served by that type of pricing?
It seems to me that the current suggestion is that I should have to fit my life around how the trains work as opposed to them catering to my needs. What other service works like this?
If the private companies can charge me £34 for a train, why can't I spend £34 and leave in half an hour? Why should I have to change my schedule to get a cheaper price?
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
That will mean high salaries for unionised employees, frozen fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
Compared to the current system of high salaries for managers and consultants, high and complex fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure (think CrossCountry four coach trains).
I remember how shit British Rail was.
Do you?
I remember it being better. Comfortable seats in trains with sufficient carriages, pulled by a proper locomotive. Carriages with compartments and side corridors. Windows that opened. Under British Rail I could get a sleeper to Bristol, Plymouth, Birmingham and Inverness from Glasgow. Through trains to a much wider range of stations. Restaurant Cars. Much more important as a passenger than maximising profits for foreign owned private companies.
I remember the exact opposite. Cold uncomfortable journeys on rolling stock that was way past the point at which it should have been scrapped. And a massively unreliable service even when it wasn't beset with strikes.
My Grandfather was in charge of national newspaper distribution through Kings Cross/St Pancras/Euston in the sixties and seventies. So I am well aware of how flakey the whole rail system was in those days. There were vast fleets of vans on standby for when the trains failed to run. So much so that eventually the papers just gave up on the trains completely and moved to road distribution as the standard.
And there is a reason the British Rail sandwich was the butt of all those jokes back in the day.
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
That will mean high salaries for unionised employees, frozen fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
Compared to the current system of high salaries for managers and consultants, high and complex fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure (think CrossCountry four coach trains).
I remember how shit British Rail was.
Do you?
I remember it being better. Comfortable seats in trains with sufficient carriages, pulled by a proper locomotive. Carriages with compartments and side corridors. Windows that opened. Under British Rail I could get a sleeper to Bristol, Plymouth, Birmingham and Inverness from Glasgow. Through trains to a much wider range of stations. Restaurant Cars. Much more important as a passenger than maximising profits for foreign owned private companies.
Yes, but you'll never convince those who weren't there.
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
It's crazy though. Why is the pricing set up to tie customers to a specific train 3 months out? How is the country well-served by that type of pricing?
It seems to me that the current suggestion is that I should have to fit my life around how the trains work as opposed to them catering to my needs. What other service works like this?
If the private companies can charge me £34 for a train, why can't I spend £34 and leave in half an hour? Why should I have to change my schedule to get a cheaper price?
It's the same model that the airlines use, because obviously there are more popular and convenient times to travel, but no transport system can accommodate everyone wanting to travel at the same time - so a price signal is used to encourage some to accommodate scheduling inconvenience in return for a lower price.
The alternative that we see with car travel is that the inconvenience of congestion delays encourages people to travel at alternative times.
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
It's crazy though. Why is the pricing set up to tie customers to a specific train 3 months out? How is the country well-served by that type of pricing?
It seems to me that the current suggestion is that I should have to fit my life around how the trains work as opposed to them catering to my needs. What other service works like this?
If the private companies can charge me £34 for a train, why can't I spend £34 and leave in half an hour? Why should I have to change my schedule to get a cheaper price?
Because running a train has high fixed costs. Therefore they sell non flexible tickets in advance to cover the baseline.
If you want to leave in half an hour you are getting the value of convenience. They have the right to charge for that.
You can then make a free choice between cost and convenience based on your preferences
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
28% say they would vote for a Boris led party v Starmer to 25% for a Sunak led party. For Braverman and Mordaunt it is 23%, Patel 22% and Badenoch 19%
'Among the “lost Conservatives”, who said they won’t vote Tory at the next election but don’t know who to vote for, 52 per cent said they would vote for Mr Johnson over Sir Keir.
Difficult story for Scottish Labour in tomorrow’s papers (embargoed til midnight). They’ve kept it off one front page with a Starmer interview, but after an upbeat conference it’s going to be a difficult few days for Anas Sarwar. SNP poised to twist knife tomorrow too
There isn't any alternative a majority of Tory MPs back and many in the right are willing to let him and Hunt take the flack for general election defeat so the rightwing can then take over in opposition, indeed the likes of Badenoch want to be Leader of the Opposition not fag end PM now
Wouldn’t one of your favs - Steve Barclay or Tom Tugendhat, get a better General Election result than Sunak, if they replaced Rishi right now?
They have zero chance of winning leadership after the election haven’t they. But if PM now as “unity candidate” got better than expected GE, saving 220+ seats, they would have a good chance of clinging on.
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
I think it's fair to say that Liz Truss surprised on the downside, and that every PM is going to look better by comparison with her, but I think it wasn't inevitable that the Conservative Party would choose the worst PM of all time when they chose a replacement for Johnson so, as arguments for replacing him being a mistake go, I think it's somewhat lacking.
There isn't any alternative a majority of Tory MPs back and many in the right are willing to let him and Hunt take the flack for general election defeat so the rightwing can then take over in opposition, indeed the likes of Badenoch want to be Leader of the Opposition not fag end PM now
Exactly.
Who would they instal?
They can't agree whether to open the window on a warm day never mind who should be leader.
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
It's crazy though. Why is the pricing set up to tie customers to a specific train 3 months out? How is the country well-served by that type of pricing?
It seems to me that the current suggestion is that I should have to fit my life around how the trains work as opposed to them catering to my needs. What other service works like this?
If the private companies can charge me £34 for a train, why can't I spend £34 and leave in half an hour? Why should I have to change my schedule to get a cheaper price?
Because running a train has high fixed costs. Therefore they sell non flexible tickets in advance to cover the baseline.
If you want to leave in half an hour you are getting the value of convenience. They have the right to charge for that.
You can then make a free choice between cost and convenience based on your preferences
I cannot choose to get a different train if I have to get in for a job that starts at 9AM can I? What do you suggest, I get sacked?
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
It's crazy though. Why is the pricing set up to tie customers to a specific train 3 months out? How is the country well-served by that type of pricing?
It seems to me that the current suggestion is that I should have to fit my life around how the trains work as opposed to them catering to my needs. What other service works like this?
If the private companies can charge me £34 for a train, why can't I spend £34 and leave in half an hour? Why should I have to change my schedule to get a cheaper price?
It's the same model that the airlines use, because obviously there are more popular and convenient times to travel, but no transport system can accommodate everyone wanting to travel at the same time - so a price signal is used to encourage some to accommodate scheduling inconvenience in return for a lower price.
The alternative that we see with car travel is that the inconvenience of congestion delays encourages people to travel at alternative times.
That would be an argument for different pricing at different times of day or week but not for charging less for tickets bought months in advance.
Franchising has failed. Even the Tories, who came up with this moronic dog’s breakfast, admit it has failed.
Five - or is it six? - regional franchises are now in public hands because the shitbox privateers ran the service like a primary school Brio track and either cried off their contract or got sacked for being fucking useless clowns.
The track was renationalised several blue moons ago because the corporate fat controllers who ran it were profiteering twats who blamed each other daily rather than take any responsibility themselves, and put cash before country.
So failed a concept is it that even those famous hard leftwingers Peter Hitchens, Isabel Oakeshott and Arron Banks favour a wholesale renationalisation of whatever scraps are left are left in the private sector.
Only on PB - only on PB! - do I hear people go out to bat for this abject national embarrassment.
Renationalise it all, and do it now.
Also not training enough drivers then pissing and moaning when they decide to not partake in 'voluntary' overtime.
And cancelling trains for that reason, with 20 minutes’ notice, as happened to me the other day. They are a shambles.
It amuses me how simultaneously people argue how shit the rails are, how inefficient and crap they are etc
And then at the same time, some (not all) of the same people argue how great rail is and how much better it is than roads etc
Its funny how rails are so efficient that they can't operate without humungous subsidies while cars are taxed through the rafters, and so great that their users seem to do nothing but bitch and moan about how shit they are.
The subsidy for rail takes cars off the road. It's a subsidy for those who must drive more than anyone else. A city like London could not operate without them.
If Londoners want their city to operate, Londoners should pay for it. Why should I pay for their transport with my taxes, they don't pay for mine.
If rail is efficient, it can pay its own way. Anyone who wants to go into London on a train should pay in full a commercial rate for the service rendered, with the same level of taxation too that a driver would pay too.
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
It's crazy though. Why is the pricing set up to tie customers to a specific train 3 months out? How is the country well-served by that type of pricing?
It seems to me that the current suggestion is that I should have to fit my life around how the trains work as opposed to them catering to my needs. What other service works like this?
If the private companies can charge me £34 for a train, why can't I spend £34 and leave in half an hour? Why should I have to change my schedule to get a cheaper price?
Because running a train has high fixed costs. Therefore they sell non flexible tickets in advance to cover the baseline.
If you want to leave in half an hour you are getting the value of convenience. They have the right to charge for that.
You can then make a free choice between cost and convenience based on your preferences
I cannot choose to get a different train if I have to get in for a job that starts at 9AM can I? What do you suggest, I get sacked?
Get a different job. Get a different mode of transport. Get a different house. Work from home if you can.
Plenty of alternatives, the choice is yours, but whatever your choice is, you should pay in full for it - nobody else should pay for you to get to your work, how you get there is your responsibility just as I pay in full (plus tax) to get to mine.
Franchising has failed. Even the Tories, who came up with this moronic dog’s breakfast, admit it has failed.
Five - or is it six? - regional franchises are now in public hands because the shitbox privateers ran the service like a primary school Brio track and either cried off their contract or got sacked for being fucking useless clowns.
The track was renationalised several blue moons ago because the corporate fat controllers who ran it were profiteering twats who blamed each other daily rather than take any responsibility themselves, and put cash before country.
So failed a concept is it that even those famous hard leftwingers Peter Hitchens, Isabel Oakeshott and Arron Banks favour a wholesale renationalisation of whatever scraps are left are left in the private sector.
Only on PB - only on PB! - do I hear people go out to bat for this abject national embarrassment.
Renationalise it all, and do it now.
Also not training enough drivers then pissing and moaning when they decide to not partake in 'voluntary' overtime.
And cancelling trains for that reason, with 20 minutes’ notice, as happened to me the other day. They are a shambles.
It amuses me how simultaneously people argue how shit the rails are, how inefficient and crap they are etc
And then at the same time, some (not all) of the same people argue how great rail is and how much better it is than roads etc
Its funny how rails are so efficient that they can't operate without humungous subsidies while cars are taxed through the rafters, and so great that their users seem to do nothing but bitch and moan about how shit they are.
The subsidy for rail takes cars off the road. It's a subsidy for those who must drive more than anyone else. A city like London could not operate without them.
If Londoners want their city to operate, Londoners should pay for it. Why should I pay for their transport with my taxes, they don't pay for mine.
If rail is efficient, it can pay its own way. Anyone who wants to go into London on a train should pay in full a commercial rate for the service rendered, with the same level of taxation too that a driver would pay too.
Great, let’s readjust spending so it matches tax take per capita for each region. As a Londoner and devolution advocate I endorse this message.
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
It's crazy though. Why is the pricing set up to tie customers to a specific train 3 months out? How is the country well-served by that type of pricing?
It seems to me that the current suggestion is that I should have to fit my life around how the trains work as opposed to them catering to my needs. What other service works like this?
If the private companies can charge me £34 for a train, why can't I spend £34 and leave in half an hour? Why should I have to change my schedule to get a cheaper price?
It's the same model that the airlines use, because obviously there are more popular and convenient times to travel, but no transport system can accommodate everyone wanting to travel at the same time - so a price signal is used to encourage some to accommodate scheduling inconvenience in return for a lower price.
The alternative that we see with car travel is that the inconvenience of congestion delays encourages people to travel at alternative times.
That would be an argument for different pricing at different times of day or week but not for charging less for tickets bought months in advance.
If you do it the airline pricing way you don't have to predict which times of day, or week, will be more popular - the actual demands will work that out for you. And that way you don't get caught out if there's a lot of people who want to travel at an unusual time because of a sporting event, or whatever, that you didn't anticipate. The pricing system reacts automatically.
But, obviously, this only works if you are selling tickets in advance, so people have time to plan to travel at different times, rather than on the day.
There isn't any alternative a majority of Tory MPs back and many in the right are willing to let him and Hunt take the flack for general election defeat so the rightwing can then take over in opposition, indeed the likes of Badenoch want to be Leader of the Opposition not fag end PM now
Exactly.
Who would they instal?
They can't agree whether to open the window on a warm day never mind who should be leader.
They only need to agree it shouldn't be Richi
And in that they are (for once) in tune with their constituents...
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
It's crazy though. Why is the pricing set up to tie customers to a specific train 3 months out? How is the country well-served by that type of pricing?
It seems to me that the current suggestion is that I should have to fit my life around how the trains work as opposed to them catering to my needs. What other service works like this?
If the private companies can charge me £34 for a train, why can't I spend £34 and leave in half an hour? Why should I have to change my schedule to get a cheaper price?
Because running a train has high fixed costs. Therefore they sell non flexible tickets in advance to cover the baseline.
If you want to leave in half an hour you are getting the value of convenience. They have the right to charge for that.
You can then make a free choice between cost and convenience based on your preferences
I cannot choose to get a different train if I have to get in for a job that starts at 9AM can I? What do you suggest, I get sacked?
Buy your tickets in advanced at a discounted price (aka a season ticket).
Or, if you are an independent contractor, accurately price your costs into your quote
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
It's crazy though. Why is the pricing set up to tie customers to a specific train 3 months out? How is the country well-served by that type of pricing?
It seems to me that the current suggestion is that I should have to fit my life around how the trains work as opposed to them catering to my needs. What other service works like this?
If the private companies can charge me £34 for a train, why can't I spend £34 and leave in half an hour? Why should I have to change my schedule to get a cheaper price?
Because running a train has high fixed costs. Therefore they sell non flexible tickets in advance to cover the baseline.
If you want to leave in half an hour you are getting the value of convenience. They have the right to charge for that.
You can then make a free choice between cost and convenience based on your preferences
I cannot choose to get a different train if I have to get in for a job that starts at 9AM can I? What do you suggest, I get sacked?
Get a different job. Get a different mode of transport. Get a different house. Work from home if you can.
Plenty of alternatives, the choice is yours, but whatever your choice is, you should pay in full for it - nobody else should pay for you to get to your work, how you get there is your responsibility just as I pay in full (plus tax) to get to mine.
So we should privatise the roads then? Because you are paying for me to get to work every time I drive to the train station.
Why should I have to change how I work because the public transport system doesn't work like it should?
In London, the network works for me, I pay the same price whenever I travel. It is cheap, it is reliable, it is consistently available. So much better.
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
It's crazy though. Why is the pricing set up to tie customers to a specific train 3 months out? How is the country well-served by that type of pricing?
It seems to me that the current suggestion is that I should have to fit my life around how the trains work as opposed to them catering to my needs. What other service works like this?
If the private companies can charge me £34 for a train, why can't I spend £34 and leave in half an hour? Why should I have to change my schedule to get a cheaper price?
Because running a train has high fixed costs. Therefore they sell non flexible tickets in advance to cover the baseline.
If you want to leave in half an hour you are getting the value of convenience. They have the right to charge for that.
You can then make a free choice between cost and convenience based on your preferences
I cannot choose to get a different train if I have to get in for a job that starts at 9AM can I? What do you suggest, I get sacked?
Get a different job. Get a different mode of transport. Get a different house. Work from home if you can.
Plenty of alternatives, the choice is yours, but whatever your choice is, you should pay in full for it - nobody else should pay for you to get to your work, how you get there is your responsibility just as I pay in full (plus tax) to get to mine.
So we should privatise the roads then? Because you are paying for me to get to work every time I drive to the train station.
Why should I have to change how I work because the public transport system doesn't work like it should?
In London, the network works for me, I pay the same price whenever I travel. It is cheap, it is reliable, it is consistently available. So much better.
I would completely support abolishing taxes on vehicles and fuel and privatising the roads instead, yes. I'd welcome the dramatic reduction in my transport costs, I'm sure the Chancellor would be upset at the tens of billions he'd lose though.
In London you don't pay for your travel, we all do.
Franchising has failed. Even the Tories, who came up with this moronic dog’s breakfast, admit it has failed.
Five - or is it six? - regional franchises are now in public hands because the shitbox privateers ran the service like a primary school Brio track and either cried off their contract or got sacked for being fucking useless clowns.
The track was renationalised several blue moons ago because the corporate fat controllers who ran it were profiteering twats who blamed each other daily rather than take any responsibility themselves, and put cash before country.
So failed a concept is it that even those famous hard leftwingers Peter Hitchens, Isabel Oakeshott and Arron Banks favour a wholesale renationalisation of whatever scraps are left are left in the private sector.
Only on PB - only on PB! - do I hear people go out to bat for this abject national embarrassment.
Renationalise it all, and do it now.
Also not training enough drivers then pissing and moaning when they decide to not partake in 'voluntary' overtime.
And cancelling trains for that reason, with 20 minutes’ notice, as happened to me the other day. They are a shambles.
It amuses me how simultaneously people argue how shit the rails are, how inefficient and crap they are etc
And then at the same time, some (not all) of the same people argue how great rail is and how much better it is than roads etc
Its funny how rails are so efficient that they can't operate without humungous subsidies while cars are taxed through the rafters, and so great that their users seem to do nothing but bitch and moan about how shit they are.
The subsidy for rail takes cars off the road. It's a subsidy for those who must drive more than anyone else. A city like London could not operate without them.
If Londoners want their city to operate, Londoners should pay for it. Why should I pay for their transport with my taxes, they don't pay for mine.
If rail is efficient, it can pay its own way. Anyone who wants to go into London on a train should pay in full a commercial rate for the service rendered, with the same level of taxation too that a driver would pay too.
Great, let’s readjust spending so it matches tax take per capita for each region. As a Londoner and devolution advocate I endorse this message.
I agree, fully privatise the roads, I don't want any of my taxes spent to maintain roads which I don't drive on. In fact now I've recently sold my car I shouldn't pay any money towards roads at all. And yes let's re-balance spending to give London even more money.
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
It's crazy though. Why is the pricing set up to tie customers to a specific train 3 months out? How is the country well-served by that type of pricing?
It seems to me that the current suggestion is that I should have to fit my life around how the trains work as opposed to them catering to my needs. What other service works like this?
If the private companies can charge me £34 for a train, why can't I spend £34 and leave in half an hour? Why should I have to change my schedule to get a cheaper price?
Because running a train has high fixed costs. Therefore they sell non flexible tickets in advance to cover the baseline.
If you want to leave in half an hour you are getting the value of convenience. They have the right to charge for that.
You can then make a free choice between cost and convenience based on your preferences
I cannot choose to get a different train if I have to get in for a job that starts at 9AM can I? What do you suggest, I get sacked?
Get a different job. Get a different mode of transport. Get a different house. Work from home if you can.
Plenty of alternatives, the choice is yours, but whatever your choice is, you should pay in full for it - nobody else should pay for you to get to your work, how you get there is your responsibility just as I pay in full (plus tax) to get to mine.
So we should privatise the roads then? Because you are paying for me to get to work every time I drive to the train station.
Why should I have to change how I work because the public transport system doesn't work like it should?
In London, the network works for me, I pay the same price whenever I travel. It is cheap, it is reliable, it is consistently available. So much better.
I would completely support abolishing taxes on vehicles and fuel and privatising the roads instead, yes.
In London you don't pay for your travel, we all do.
I must have imagined the £8 that came out of my bank account this morning.
Why should I pay for your roads? I don't drive anymore.
Franchising has failed. Even the Tories, who came up with this moronic dog’s breakfast, admit it has failed.
Five - or is it six? - regional franchises are now in public hands because the shitbox privateers ran the service like a primary school Brio track and either cried off their contract or got sacked for being fucking useless clowns.
The track was renationalised several blue moons ago because the corporate fat controllers who ran it were profiteering twats who blamed each other daily rather than take any responsibility themselves, and put cash before country.
So failed a concept is it that even those famous hard leftwingers Peter Hitchens, Isabel Oakeshott and Arron Banks favour a wholesale renationalisation of whatever scraps are left are left in the private sector.
Only on PB - only on PB! - do I hear people go out to bat for this abject national embarrassment.
Renationalise it all, and do it now.
Also not training enough drivers then pissing and moaning when they decide to not partake in 'voluntary' overtime.
And cancelling trains for that reason, with 20 minutes’ notice, as happened to me the other day. They are a shambles.
It amuses me how simultaneously people argue how shit the rails are, how inefficient and crap they are etc
And then at the same time, some (not all) of the same people argue how great rail is and how much better it is than roads etc
Its funny how rails are so efficient that they can't operate without humungous subsidies while cars are taxed through the rafters, and so great that their users seem to do nothing but bitch and moan about how shit they are.
The subsidy for rail takes cars off the road. It's a subsidy for those who must drive more than anyone else. A city like London could not operate without them.
If Londoners want their city to operate, Londoners should pay for it. Why should I pay for their transport with my taxes, they don't pay for mine.
If rail is efficient, it can pay its own way. Anyone who wants to go into London on a train should pay in full a commercial rate for the service rendered, with the same level of taxation too that a driver would pay too.
Great, let’s readjust spending so it matches tax take per capita for each region. As a Londoner and devolution advocate I endorse this message.
I agree, fully privatise the roads, I don't want any of my taxes spent to maintain roads which I don't drive on. In fact now I've recently sold my car I shouldn't pay any money towards roads at all. And yes let's re-balance spending to give London even more money.
We can be agreed then. I don't spend money on your transport, you don't spend money on mine. We all pay our own way instead going forwards.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
It's crazy though. Why is the pricing set up to tie customers to a specific train 3 months out? How is the country well-served by that type of pricing?
It seems to me that the current suggestion is that I should have to fit my life around how the trains work as opposed to them catering to my needs. What other service works like this?
If the private companies can charge me £34 for a train, why can't I spend £34 and leave in half an hour? Why should I have to change my schedule to get a cheaper price?
Because running a train has high fixed costs. Therefore they sell non flexible tickets in advance to cover the baseline.
If you want to leave in half an hour you are getting the value of convenience. They have the right to charge for that.
You can then make a free choice between cost and convenience based on your preferences
I cannot choose to get a different train if I have to get in for a job that starts at 9AM can I? What do you suggest, I get sacked?
Get a different job. Get a different mode of transport. Get a different house. Work from home if you can.
Plenty of alternatives, the choice is yours, but whatever your choice is, you should pay in full for it - nobody else should pay for you to get to your work, how you get there is your responsibility just as I pay in full (plus tax) to get to mine.
So we should privatise the roads then? Because you are paying for me to get to work every time I drive to the train station.
Why should I have to change how I work because the public transport system doesn't work like it should?
In London, the network works for me, I pay the same price whenever I travel. It is cheap, it is reliable, it is consistently available. So much better.
I would completely support abolishing taxes on vehicles and fuel and privatising the roads instead, yes.
In London you don't pay for your travel, we all do.
I must have imagined the £8 that came out of my bank account this morning.
Why should I pay for your roads? I don't drive anymore.
And is £8 all it costs, or was that a token payment you made that went along with subsidies and didn't actually pay your own way?
Why should you pay for roads? You shouldn't. You don't.
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
The train leasing firms are the real scandal of privatisation. If you wonder why we pay so much for train tickets and pay so much in subsidies and still have a crap service, the fact the leasing firms are earning a 40% profit margin might have something to do with it.
"Within parts of the rail industry, there is significant support for Roscos. One senior source said: “They’ve made big bucks, but we’ve got thousands of new trains … If [buying trains] was on the government books, schools, the NHS or police would have got the spending first.”
This is the last resort of the Continuity Supporters of Franchising. It really is a weak AF argument.
It’s remarkable how many other developed western economies have their railway wholly in the public sector, run as a public service, yet beat ours on any reasonable metric.
Whatever is left in the hands of the chiselling privateers, nationalise it.
That will mean high salaries for unionised employees, frozen fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure.
There isn't a simple easy answer here. Privatisation has done a lot to improve the network.
Compared to the current system of high salaries for managers and consultants, high and complex fares for passengers and terrible service quality and infrastructure (think CrossCountry four coach trains).
I remember how shit British Rail was.
Do you?
I remember it being better. Comfortable seats in trains with sufficient carriages, pulled by a proper locomotive. Carriages with compartments and side corridors. Windows that opened. Under British Rail I could get a sleeper to Bristol, Plymouth, Birmingham and Inverness from Glasgow. Through trains to a much wider range of stations. Restaurant Cars. Much more important as a passenger than maximising profits for foreign owned private companies.
Yes, but you'll never convince those who weren't there.
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
Boris wasn't forced out. He resigned.
You'll see this narrative build now until and after the GE, that actually St Johnson would have won a landslide.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
Boris wasn't forced out. He resigned.
You'll see this narrative build now until and after the GE, that actually St Johnson would have won a landslide.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
If Trump returns to the White House next January after losing power in 2020, I expect Boris will try and do the same and after a Sunak and Hunt defeat try and take over the Conservatives again in opposition
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
Boris wasn't forced out. He resigned.
You'll see this narrative build now until and after the GE, that actually St Johnson would have won a landslide.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
Boris wasn't forced out. He resigned.
You'll see this narrative build now until and after the GE, that actually St Johnson would have won a landslide.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
If Trump returns to the White House next January after losing power in 2020, I expect Boris will try and do the same and after a Sunak and Hunt defeat try and take over the Conservatives again in opposition
If the house that the Johnson's have bought in Oxfordshire is anything to go by then being an ex-PM is working out really well for him. Why would be want to give that up to become leader of the Opposition?
O/T we were at the British Museum today (for the 'Legion: life in the Roman army' exhibition - quite interesting).
We should charge entry for these national museums and galleries but keep them free to UK residents and accompanied children.
UK residents could show a driving licence, passport, or other photo ID. (I'd be happy to extend free entry to EU citizens as part of a deal for closer trading and cooperation.)
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
I didn't realise the M3 was now a toll road? Why is ANY of my money spent on the roads, I don't use them. If you want to have fully privatised trains, then we should have fully privatised roads. No taxes spent on roads, cars etc. End of story.
O/T we were at the British Museum today (for the 'Legion: life in the Roman army' exhibition - quite interesting).
We should charge entry for these national museums and galleries but keep them free to UK residents and accompanied children.
UK residents could show a driving licence, passport, or other photo ID. (I'd be happy to extend free entry to EU citizens as part of a deal for closer trading and cooperation.)
What about all those residents denied the vote because they don't have photo ID? Would you shut them out of museums too?
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
Boris wasn't forced out. He resigned.
You'll see this narrative build now until and after the GE, that actually St Johnson would have won a landslide.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
If Trump returns to the White House next January after losing power in 2020, I expect Boris will try and do the same and after a Sunak and Hunt defeat try and take over the Conservatives again in opposition
If the house that the Johnson's have bought in Oxfordshire is anything to go by then being an ex-PM is working out really well for him. Why would be want to give that up to become leader of the Opposition?
As Leader of the Opposition is a doss compared to being PM, all he would have to do is slag off Starmer's government for being crap while not having to have any responsibility. Then hope Starmer becomes as unpopular as Sunak and Boris can say 'told you so' at the subsequent election
Rail travel might have been shit but at least it was cheap. Now it's shit and expensive.
(I checked. London to Manchester one way is currently £160 but was £9.60 in 1976. Using a Purchasing Power calculator that's about £80 equivalent)
If you're willing to buy in advance and commit to a specific train it can be cheaper. For instance London to Manchester on the 8th May on the 11:13 will cost you just £34 if you buy the ticket right now, which is less than half the 1976-equivalent price. You didn't have that option back then.
It's crazy though. Why is the pricing set up to tie customers to a specific train 3 months out? How is the country well-served by that type of pricing?
It seems to me that the current suggestion is that I should have to fit my life around how the trains work as opposed to them catering to my needs. What other service works like this?
If the private companies can charge me £34 for a train, why can't I spend £34 and leave in half an hour? Why should I have to change my schedule to get a cheaper price?
Because running a train has high fixed costs. Therefore they sell non flexible tickets in advance to cover the baseline.
If you want to leave in half an hour you are getting the value of convenience. They have the right to charge for that.
You can then make a free choice between cost and convenience based on your preferences
Which is also a form of price discrimination, since business and other work related travellers will book at short notice whereas people making occasional leisure trips tend to book well in advance.
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
Boris wasn't forced out. He resigned.
You'll see this narrative build now until and after the GE, that actually St Johnson would have won a landslide.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
The landslide would have been whatever the next, even bigger scandal would have been, his having presumably got away with the ones that actually brought him down.
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
Boris wasn't forced out. He resigned.
You'll see this narrative build now until and after the GE, that actually St Johnson would have won a landslide.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
If Trump returns to the White House next January after losing power in 2020, I expect Boris will try and do the same and after a Sunak and Hunt defeat try and take over the Conservatives again in opposition
Firstly, the system in the US means you can easily run for the top job from outside Congress. The Conservative candidate for PM is their leader in the House of Commons, so he'd need to cross that hurdle (and be allowed to by those with an interest in preventing it, as well as an MP willing to step aside and the electorate in their constituency).
Secondly, Johnson isn't Trump. I mean that in a broadly complimentary way to Johnson - he's an occasionally amusing but rather flawed individual. He's not polarised the public to the extend half of them think he's the Messiah and the other half the Antichrist. I'm sure he has plenty of fans in the Conservative membership. But, to most of the public now, he's just a bloke who was PM at one time.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
O/T we were at the British Museum today (for the 'Legion: life in the Roman army' exhibition - quite interesting).
We should charge entry for these national museums and galleries but keep them free to UK residents and accompanied children.
UK residents could show a driving licence, passport, or other photo ID. (I'd be happy to extend free entry to EU citizens as part of a deal for closer trading and cooperation.)
What about all those residents denied the vote because they don't have photo ID? Would you shut them out of museums too?
Easier to add a “tourist tax” to the price of hotel & AirBnB rooms and use that money to cover the costs of central grants to the museums
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
I didn't realise the M3 was now a toll road? Why is ANY of my money spent on the roads, I don't use them. If you want to have fully privatised trains, then we should have fully privatised roads. No taxes spent on roads, cars etc. End of story.
None of your money is. 🤦♂️
The Chancellor makes a ridiculously big profit of tens of billions on road taxation. If it were a private company making that profit, they'd quite rightly be accused of being extortionate.
I am entirely fine with tax on transport being abolished and fully privatised costs being paid instead, my costs would plummet.
O/T we were at the British Museum today (for the 'Legion: life in the Roman army' exhibition - quite interesting).
We should charge entry for these national museums and galleries but keep them free to UK residents and accompanied children.
UK residents could show a driving licence, passport, or other photo ID. (I'd be happy to extend free entry to EU citizens as part of a deal for closer trading and cooperation.)
I don't have any of those ID's. Perhaps I should pay some government agency for one rather than give a few quid to the place I want to experience.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
O/T we were at the British Museum today (for the 'Legion: life in the Roman army' exhibition - quite interesting).
We should charge entry for these national museums and galleries but keep them free to UK residents and accompanied children.
UK residents could show a driving licence, passport, or other photo ID. (I'd be happy to extend free entry to EU citizens as part of a deal for closer trading and cooperation.)
I don't have any of those ID's. Perhaps I should pay some government agency for one rather than give a few quid to the place I want to experience.
O/T we were at the British Museum today (for the 'Legion: life in the Roman army' exhibition - quite interesting).
We should charge entry for these national museums and galleries but keep them free to UK residents and accompanied children.
UK residents could show a driving licence, passport, or other photo ID. (I'd be happy to extend free entry to EU citizens as part of a deal for closer trading and cooperation.)
What about all those residents denied the vote because they don't have photo ID? Would you shut them out of museums too?
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
Bullshit.
I'm actually a massive fan of car congestion. It's why average speeds are so slow on the roads, contributing to a reduction in casualties. A 20mph limit is redundant in most cities during rush hour as the average speed is significantly slower anyway.
My concern is that measures to reduce traffic in cities will see a large increase in high velocity collisions with pedestrians.
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
Boris wasn't forced out. He resigned.
You'll see this narrative build now until and after the GE, that actually St Johnson would have won a landslide.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
If Trump returns to the White House next January after losing power in 2020, I expect Boris will try and do the same and after a Sunak and Hunt defeat try and take over the Conservatives again in opposition
Firstly, the system in the US means you can easily run for the top job from outside Congress. The Conservative candidate for PM is their leader in the House of Commons, so he'd need to cross that hurdle (and be allowed to by those with an interest in preventing it, as well as an MP willing to step aside and the electorate in their constituency).
Secondly, Johnson isn't Trump. I mean that in a broadly complimentary way to Johnson - he's an occasionally amusing but rather flawed individual. He's not polarised the public to the extend half of them think he's the Messiah and the other half the Antichrist. I'm sure he has plenty of fans in the Conservative membership. But, to most of the public now, he's just a bloke who was PM at one time.
If Sunak loses he also loses control of CCHQ and therefore Boris would find getting on the candidates list much easier again and lots of safe seats would jump at the chance of him as MP.
Boris isn't Trump but post Brexit he still polarises opinion in the UK strongly
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
Boris wasn't forced out. He resigned.
You'll see this narrative build now until and after the GE, that actually St Johnson would have won a landslide.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
I didn't realise the M3 was now a toll road? Why is ANY of my money spent on the roads, I don't use them. If you want to have fully privatised trains, then we should have fully privatised roads. No taxes spent on roads, cars etc. End of story.
None of your money is. 🤦♂️
The Chancellor makes a ridiculously big profit of tens of billions on road taxation. If it were a private company making that profit, they'd quite rightly be accused of being extortionate.
I am entirely fine with tax on transport being abolished and fully privatised costs being paid instead, my costs would plummet.
Eh? Are you seriously saying no taxpayer money is spent on the roads? On potholes that Rishi Sunak keeps announcing money for?
I am against all of these costs, no public money on anything car-related.
O/T we were at the British Museum today (for the 'Legion: life in the Roman army' exhibition - quite interesting).
We should charge entry for these national museums and galleries but keep them free to UK residents and accompanied children.
UK residents could show a driving licence, passport, or other photo ID. (I'd be happy to extend free entry to EU citizens as part of a deal for closer trading and cooperation.)
I don't have any of those ID's. Perhaps I should pay some government agency for one rather than give a few quid to the place I want to experience.
How are you going to vote?
No idea, sadly. I was just born here, live here and pay my taxes. It seems it's not enough.
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
Boris wasn't forced out. He resigned.
You'll see this narrative build now until and after the GE, that actually St Johnson would have won a landslide.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
If Trump returns to the White House next January after losing power in 2020, I expect Boris will try and do the same and after a Sunak and Hunt defeat try and take over the Conservatives again in opposition
If the house that the Johnson's have bought in Oxfordshire is anything to go by then being an ex-PM is working out really well for him. Why would be want to give that up to become leader of the Opposition?
As Leader of the Opposition is a doss compared to being PM, all he would have to do is slag off Starmer's government for being crap while not having to have any responsibility. Then hope Starmer becomes as unpopular as Sunak and Boris can say 'told you so' at the subsequent election
Being PM with a large majority, like Johnson was, should be a dream scenario. Back in December 2019, a decade stretched out in front of him as World King. Then he f***ed it up.
LOTO is okay if you're winning. But you can't actually do anything, which is frustrating, and your internal enemies are thirsty for your blood.
Also, if the Conservatives lose badly this year as seems quite likely, the way back is a long slog. Johnson simply isn't a man who is interested in that sort of thing.
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
Boris wasn't forced out. He resigned.
You'll see this narrative build now until and after the GE, that actually St Johnson would have won a landslide.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
If Trump returns to the White House next January after losing power in 2020, I expect Boris will try and do the same and after a Sunak and Hunt defeat try and take over the Conservatives again in opposition
Firstly, the system in the US means you can easily run for the top job from outside Congress. The Conservative candidate for PM is their leader in the House of Commons, so he'd need to cross that hurdle (and be allowed to by those with an interest in preventing it, as well as an MP willing to step aside and the electorate in their constituency).
Secondly, Johnson isn't Trump. I mean that in a broadly complimentary way to Johnson - he's an occasionally amusing but rather flawed individual. He's not polarised the public to the extend half of them think he's the Messiah and the other half the Antichrist. I'm sure he has plenty of fans in the Conservative membership. But, to most of the public now, he's just a bloke who was PM at one time.
If Sunak loses he also loses control of CCHQ and therefore Boris would find getting on the candidates list much easier again and lots of safe seats would jump at the chance of him as MP.
Boris isn't Trump but post Brexit he still polarises opinion in the UK strongly
If Sunak loses, someone else gets control of CCHQ. Why is that person be interested in seeing a key rival back in Parliament? And will the public have it anyway? Not impossible, but a significant hurdle.
On polarising opinion, he does so much less effectively POST Brexit that he did PRE Brexit. Then, people voted for him to get Brexit done. Now, it isn't clear what the point of polarisation is. He's a bloke who was PM, wasn't a very good one, and now isn't. You are - no doubt from your particular position in the Conservative Party - just seeing this from a totally different perspective than the vast majority of the public. Johnson is ancient history.
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
Boris wasn't forced out. He resigned.
You'll see this narrative build now until and after the GE, that actually St Johnson would have won a landslide.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
If Trump returns to the White House next January after losing power in 2020, I expect Boris will try and do the same and after a Sunak and Hunt defeat try and take over the Conservatives again in opposition
Firstly, the system in the US means you can easily run for the top job from outside Congress. The Conservative candidate for PM is their leader in the House of Commons, so he'd need to cross that hurdle (and be allowed to by those with an interest in preventing it, as well as an MP willing to step aside and the electorate in their constituency).
Secondly, Johnson isn't Trump. I mean that in a broadly complimentary way to Johnson - he's an occasionally amusing but rather flawed individual. He's not polarised the public to the extend half of them think he's the Messiah and the other half the Antichrist. I'm sure he has plenty of fans in the Conservative membership. But, to most of the public now, he's just a bloke who was PM at one time.
If Sunak loses he also loses control of CCHQ and therefore Boris would find getting on the candidates list much easier again and lots of safe seats would jump at the chance of him as MP.
Boris isn't Trump but post Brexit he still polarises opinion in the UK strongly
If Sunak loses, someone else gets control of CCHQ. Why is that person be interested in seeing a key rival back in Parliament? And will the public have it anyway? Not impossible, but a significant hurdle.
On polarising opinion, he does so much less effectively POST Brexit that he did PRE Brexit. Then, people voted for him to get Brexit done. Now, it isn't clear what the point of polarisation is. He's a bloke who was PM, wasn't a very good one, and now isn't. You are - no doubt from your particular position in the Conservative Party - just seeing this from a totally different perspective than the vast majority of the public. Johnson is ancient history.
For starters as they would be more likely to be from the right of the party and their supporters will push hard to get Boris back as an MP
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
Boris wasn't forced out. He resigned.
You'll see this narrative build now until and after the GE, that actually St Johnson would have won a landslide.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
If Trump returns to the White House next January after losing power in 2020, I expect Boris will try and do the same and after a Sunak and Hunt defeat try and take over the Conservatives again in opposition
If the house that the Johnson's have bought in Oxfordshire is anything to go by then being an ex-PM is working out really well for him. Why would be want to give that up to become leader of the Opposition?
As Leader of the Opposition is a doss compared to being PM, all he would have to do is slag off Starmer's government for being crap while not having to have any responsibility. Then hope Starmer becomes as unpopular as Sunak and Boris can say 'told you so' at the subsequent election
Being PM with a large majority, like Johnson was, should be a dream scenario. Back in December 2019, a decade stretched out in front of him as World King. Then he f***ed it up.
LOTO is okay if you're winning. But you can't actually do anything, which is frustrating, and your internal enemies are thirsty for your blood.
Also, if the Conservatives lose badly this year as seems quite likely, the way back is a long slog. Johnson simply isn't a man who is interested in that sort of thing.
Maybe. Maybe not. We are seeing the most volatile period in western politics since the 1970s, new governments are swiftly losing popularity all over due to cost of living and high interest rates impacted by the lockdowns and Ukraine war. Who would have thought in January 2021 a defeated Trump would be back leading many US polls again?
Of course Boris is plotting a comeback. His hope is to see some stooge replace Sunak, someone who will supply him with a safe seat or perhaps a seat in the Lords.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
I didn't realise the M3 was now a toll road? Why is ANY of my money spent on the roads, I don't use them. If you want to have fully privatised trains, then we should have fully privatised roads. No taxes spent on roads, cars etc. End of story.
None of your money is. 🤦♂️
The Chancellor makes a ridiculously big profit of tens of billions on road taxation. If it were a private company making that profit, they'd quite rightly be accused of being extortionate.
I am entirely fine with tax on transport being abolished and fully privatised costs being paid instead, my costs would plummet.
Eh? Are you seriously saying no taxpayer money is spent on the roads? On potholes that Rishi Sunak keeps announcing money for?
I am against all of these costs, no public money on anything car-related.
Yes, I'm saying not a single penny of taxpayer money is being spent on the roads that hasn't come from road-based taxation.
If all the taxes drivers paid went to fixing potholes or building new roads, with not a penny coming from elsewhere, the expenditure on roads would shoot up, not decrease.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
Bullshit.
I'm actually a massive fan of car congestion. It's why average speeds are so slow on the roads, contributing to a reduction in casualties. A 20mph limit is redundant in most cities during rush hour as the average speed is significantly slower anyway.
My concern is that measures to reduce traffic in cities will see a large increase in high velocity collisions with pedestrians.
While most of the time I drive in urban areas I have my cruise control set to the speed limit, whether that be 30, 40 or 50 miles per hour. Too many places are 30 that really should be more, or 50 when they should really be 70.
Cruise control can't be set in my vehicle less than 25 mph, but that's rarely a problem unless I'm at or approaching red lights.
Not everyone only experiences driving in a city, at rush hour.
Still at least you didn't attempt to defend your bullshit claim and accepted it was bullshit and tried to move on to a stereotypical out-of-touch city experience.
We need a programme of national investment in both.
Perhaps we're just ahead of the curve in phasing out unnecessary journeys. In a world of the internet and Metaverse/Apple Vision, do we really want roads and railways?
We need a programme of national investment in both.
Perhaps we're just ahead of the curve in phasing out unnecessary journeys. In a world of the internet and Metaverse/Apple Vision, do we really want roads and railways?
Of course Boris is plotting a comeback. His hope is to see some stooge replace Sunak, someone who will supply him with a safe seat or perhaps a seat in the Lords.
From there he’ll hope to be Tory leader by 2028.
Boris planning a comeback is about as likely as Tony Blair planning a comeback.
We need a programme of national investment in both.
Perhaps we're just ahead of the curve in phasing out unnecessary journeys. In a world of the internet and Metaverse/Apple Vision, do we really want roads and railways?
Comments
Five - or is it six? - regional franchises are now in public hands because the shitbox privateers ran the service like a primary school Brio track and either cried off their contract or got sacked for being fucking useless clowns.
The track was renationalised several blue moons ago because the corporate fat controllers who ran it were profiteering twats who blamed each other daily rather than take any responsibility themselves, and put cash before country.
So failed a concept is it that even those famous hard leftwingers Peter Hitchens, Isabel Oakeshott and Arron Banks favour a wholesale renationalisation of whatever scraps are left in the private sector.
Only on PB - only on PB! - do I hear people go out to bat for this abject national embarrassment.
Renationalise it all, and do it now.
They were unhesitating in that in any EU military structure, the control should be (a) who pays most. (b) withdrawable if required for national defence.
I wonder how Germany and France would take to this?
EDIT: though when comparing percentage of GDP spent on defence we really shouldn’t include countries’ spend on defending distant former colonial outposts or maintaining defence postures in the South China Sea or Middle East. Britain and France (and America) spend a lot on that kind of thing, but it’s not really relevant to the defence of Europe from Russian invasion.
I don’t think that is remotely part of the calculation. Whoever is in power in the summer will soon be up to their eyebrows with voter anger over the surge in boat crossings, postmasters and mistresses still waiting for fair payouts, and frustration over a mere quarter % cut in interest rates with businesses failing and deeper recession looming.
And some people say the passing over of this poisoned chalice is throwing something valuable away.
Ukrainian forces defeated a Russian offensive in Zaporizhzhia Oblast on Feb. 17, killing 70 troops and injuring 80, the Operational Command West reported on Feb. 18.
The offensive involved 30 pieces of equipment and a “fairly large” number of enemy troops. Ukraine destroyed 18 pieces of Russian equipment, including three tanks, according to the report.
“The much-hyped offensive in the Zaporizhzhia sector collapsed like Caesar Kunikov,” the Operational Command West wrote on Telegram, referring to the Russian landing ship Caesar Kunikov, sunk by Ukraine earlier this week.
https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-defeats-russian-offensive-in-zaporizhzhia-oblast/
And then at the same time, some (not all) of the same people argue how great rail is and how much better it is than roads etc
Its funny how rails are so efficient that they can't operate without humungous subsidies while cars are taxed through the rafters, and so great that their users seem to do nothing but bitch and moan about how shit they are.
But set against that is the question of how we get to that point. Going for a May election requires a brave decision to be taken.
And avoiding that decision would be much more in keeping with the current government's modus operandi.
As was one of my bugbears: common carrier status, which was only removed in ?1962?. It should have been removed post WW2, or at the latest on privatisation, as it was clear that road traffic and haulage was increasing massively. It may also have changed some of the more disastrous decisions in the 1955 modernisation plan.
Also, when choosing the date in many past examples, all the reason and analysis could have pointed to waiting till the last moment, for the economy to come right for example - something we know doesn’t apply to this current situation, because Sunak’s five pledges are more likely to go the wrong way over summer and autumn than in right direction, the current election riff “the economy is turning a corner, don’t let flip flop Starmer sink it” half affective today could sound properly naff come autumn, and continued high interest rates hurting the economy. The current technical recession wasn’t predicted - an interest rate induced downtown Q3 this year, is predicted.
Whatever made other struggling governments hold on, the reasoning may have been sound for them doing that, but in this almost unique situation holding on is not the reasoned conclusion. If modelled surge in boat crossings this summer does happen, the already fractious Tory Party will implode will it not - level pegging 16% each with Reform not so fantastical, especially with raft of MPs jumping to Reform as last throw of dice to keep their seat.
Am I becoming a boring one subject rabbit? I only logged back in because I saw “two state solution is what all us sensible people support” posted and saw red at such stupidity. I’m going to log out and get some sleep.
This isn't complicated.
If the private companies can charge me £34 for a train, why can't I spend £34 and leave in half an hour? Why should I have to change my schedule to get a cheaper price?
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
My Grandfather was in charge of national newspaper distribution through Kings Cross/St Pancras/Euston in the sixties and seventies. So I am well aware of how flakey the whole rail system was in those days. There were vast fleets of vans on standby for when the trains failed to run. So much so that eventually the papers just gave up on the trains completely and moved to road distribution as the standard.
And there is a reason the British Rail sandwich was the butt of all those jokes back in the day.
The alternative that we see with car travel is that the inconvenience of congestion delays encourages people to travel at alternative times.
If you want to leave in half an hour you are getting the value of convenience. They have the right to charge for that.
You can then make a free choice between cost and convenience based on your preferences
'Among the “lost Conservatives”, who said they won’t vote Tory at the next election but don’t know who to vote for, 52 per cent said they would vote for Mr Johnson over Sir Keir.
This is compared to 39 per cent saying they would vote for the current Prime Minister over the Labour leader.'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/18/general-election-conservative-tory-boris-johnson-leadership/
Difficult story for Scottish Labour in tomorrow’s papers (embargoed til midnight). They’ve kept it off one front page with a Starmer interview, but after an upbeat conference it’s going to be a difficult few days for Anas Sarwar. SNP poised to twist knife tomorrow too
They have zero chance of winning leadership after the election haven’t they. But if PM now as “unity candidate” got better than expected GE, saving 220+ seats, they would have a good chance of clinging on.
Exactly.
Who would they instal?
They can't agree whether to open the window on a warm day never mind who should be leader.
If rail is efficient, it can pay its own way. Anyone who wants to go into London on a train should pay in full a commercial rate for the service rendered, with the same level of taxation too that a driver would pay too.
Get a different mode of transport.
Get a different house.
Work from home if you can.
Plenty of alternatives, the choice is yours, but whatever your choice is, you should pay in full for it - nobody else should pay for you to get to your work, how you get there is your responsibility just as I pay in full (plus tax) to get to mine.
But, obviously, this only works if you are selling tickets in advance, so people have time to plan to travel at different times, rather than on the day.
And in that they are (for once) in tune with their constituents...
Or, if you are an independent contractor, accurately price your costs into your quote
Why should I have to change how I work because the public transport system doesn't work like it should?
In London, the network works for me, I pay the same price whenever I travel. It is cheap, it is reliable, it is consistently available. So much better.
In London you don't pay for your travel, we all do.
Why should I pay for your roads? I don't drive anymore.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
Why should you pay for roads? You shouldn't. You don't.
denial.
anger.
bargaining.
depression.
acceptance.
If it helps, I sympathise. Not a good position to be in. But you know what Churchill said about what to do when one goes thru hell.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
We should charge entry for these national museums and galleries but keep them free to UK residents and accompanied children.
UK residents could show a driving licence, passport, or other photo ID. (I'd be happy to extend free entry to EU citizens as part of a deal for closer trading and cooperation.)
Have they forgotten he would have been suspended by the Commons and resigned because he was too spineless to fight a possible by-election .
Not sure “I partied whilst your grannie died “ is quite the winning campaign slogan !
Secondly, Johnson isn't Trump. I mean that in a broadly complimentary way to Johnson - he's an occasionally amusing but rather flawed individual. He's not polarised the public to the extend half of them think he's the Messiah and the other half the Antichrist. I'm sure he has plenty of fans in the Conservative membership. But, to most of the public now, he's just a bloke who was PM at one time.
The Chancellor makes a ridiculously big profit of tens of billions on road taxation. If it were a private company making that profit, they'd quite rightly be accused of being extortionate.
I am entirely fine with tax on transport being abolished and fully privatised costs being paid instead, my costs would plummet.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1759344819539673261
Great to see the emphasis is on ending stagnation and restoring economic growth, not.
My concern is that measures to reduce traffic in cities will see a large increase in high velocity collisions with pedestrians.
Boris isn't Trump but post Brexit he still polarises opinion in the UK strongly
I am against all of these costs, no public money on anything car-related.
LOTO is okay if you're winning. But you can't actually do anything, which is frustrating, and your internal enemies are thirsty for your blood.
Also, if the Conservatives lose badly this year as seems quite likely, the way back is a long slog. Johnson simply isn't a man who is interested in that sort of thing.
On polarising opinion, he does so much less effectively POST Brexit that he did PRE Brexit. Then, people voted for him to get Brexit done. Now, it isn't clear what the point of polarisation is. He's a bloke who was PM, wasn't a very good one, and now isn't. You are - no doubt from your particular position in the Conservative Party - just seeing this from a totally different perspective than the vast majority of the public. Johnson is ancient history.
His hope is to see some stooge replace Sunak, someone who will supply him with a safe seat or perhaps a seat in the Lords.
From there he’ll hope to be Tory leader by 2028.
The railway is a mess. National embarrassment.
We need a programme of national investment in both.
If all the taxes drivers paid went to fixing potholes or building new roads, with not a penny coming from elsewhere, the expenditure on roads would shoot up, not decrease.
Cruise control can't be set in my vehicle less than 25 mph, but that's rarely a problem unless I'm at or approaching red lights.
Not everyone only experiences driving in a city, at rush hour.
Still at least you didn't attempt to defend your bullshit claim and accepted it was bullshit and tried to move on to a stereotypical out-of-touch city experience.
He's history.
VED generates £7 billion. And Fuel Duty £25 billion.
How much in taxes are electric car drivers will be paying to fuel their vehicles too?