Total crap, bring back Avery, at least his spinning was funny.
Osborne has totally failed to make the impression on the deficit any proper conservative should.
Consequently he now has no money to give to the strivers whose votes win elections.
His complete failure on the deficit probably explains why he is in thrall to those at the treasury who think its a good idea to confiscate money without a court order. To shut down tax breaks on pensions for short term gain. Those who think that when the state has failed, citizens should be penalised to make up for it.
Osborne is the reason the tories are toxic. Even his own MPs are against him. See Mark Field in City am today.
The conservatives have a particularly poor record on the deficit.
So why you Tories still expect a different outcome to the shambles we're witnessing is bizarre.
Shambles?
Best performing economy in 2014 of the larger econmies in the world equates to a shambles? Interesting! I am sure that if Labour were in and the economy was booming like it is you would be saying its a shambles.
We live in a competitive world. Darwinian in fact. Being competitive matters. If you choose not to compete (a la France) that doesn't mean you are not exposed to the same competitive pressures. It just means you'll suck and your economy will tank and your people will end up unemployed. The UK is pretty competitive across a range of measures. Certainly wage costs, tax, ease of transport, legal system, IT infrastructure, innovation / R&D, etc. A very benign and still improving place to do business comparatively. The World Economic Forum ranks countries on their overall competitiveness - and we're right up there. It's what drives jobs, tax flow, growth and prosperity. Dave and Ozzy get this.
The WEF downsides on the UK are the debt/deficit picture and an overgenerous welfare system. Ozzy and IDS are working on it (too slow but they're on it). Actually I think WEF competitiveness ranking ought to be an explicit target of every government everywhere. Hollande could certainly do with a dose of WEF common sense.
Any PB views on where a Miliband premiership would take the UK on this?
Rail fares: If the government subsidy in Europe is roughly the same as in the UK, why are our rail fares so high ? Are our rail companies inefficient or is it a licence to print money ?
Alot of commuter fares are below the market rate. Great business to be a seller in, huge demand.
People always say its the final straw etc. But when push comes to shove they buy their season ticket.
Probably propaganda, but I saw a poster at Coventry station the other day claiming that UK rail users rate the UK railway network more highly than French, Germans and Italians rate their networks. Maybe I should have taken a photo!
(Note: this is an independent survey performed by the European Commission, and not be the British railways industry, as someone has previously claimed).
When my God-daughter lived in the Netherlands we used to go over to visit by train and also get about the country by train. The inter-city services (there's a phrase from the past) between here and there and internally were very swish and modern. Once you get down to local rail it is decidedly below par and worse than in the UK. Travelling in France we found the same. As far as fares go, we were on holiday and so didn't take much notice but they weren't so cheap or so expensive as to make me think they were unusual.
UK railways are in my experience pretty damn good, but in absolute terms (ignoring any international comparisons) sodding expensive.
Remember when I pointed out UKIP were in favour of scrapping them, and the Tories rounded up to say it was funded by the "tooth fairy", and populist nonsense from a party with no MP's?
Well, it was originally suggested by a Tory, & 100 MP's have already backed it
Total crap, bring back Avery, at least his spinning was funny.
Osborne has totally failed to make the impression on the deficit any proper conservative should.
Consequently he now has no money to give to the strivers whose votes win elections.
His complete failure on the deficit probably explains why he is in thrall to those at the treasury who think its a good idea to confiscate money without a court order. To shut down tax breaks on pensions for short term gain. Those who think that when the state has failed, citizens should be penalised to make up for it.
Osborne is the reason the tories are toxic. Even his own MPs are against him. See Mark Field in City am today.
When did any chancellor have to deal with a deficit of 160 billion and an economy shrunk by 7.4%?? Much of what Brown thought was a cyclical defict was structural. A big chunk of what Brown thought was a permanent part of the economy was only temporary. The revenues from the financial sector disappeared forever. The fall GPD was not cyclical it was structural. Gone forever. I seem to remember Mervyn King saying the loss was 5% permanent loss to the economy- maybe more.
Osborne has done a good job. Its hard I know when people have to admit they are wrong (just look at Balls) but sometimes its best to admit it and move on.
My preferred solution for the railways would be to have them state run and commuter season tickets sold at the revenue maximisation point.
There should be a formula linking season ticket prices to the distance travelled and the income of the person buying the ticket. Just like VAT, travel costs have a regressive impact on disposable income.
Hmm I was thinking yesterday that hospital car parks are a bit regressive actually. I guess I'm changing my mind and making it up as I go along on this one ^_~
Will say that of the private operators I'd much prefer Virgin to have the franchise over First group any day of the week and twice on sundays though.
I think multiple operators on a single line could work, it may introduce some confusion, but it would also bring in real competition. Having Virgin run the ECML and First run the WCML both exclusively means very little in terms of direct competition, that only happens when the franchises come up for renewal and at that point the company who makes the most outrageously cynical promises tends to win (see Govia/GoAhead winning recently).
Introducing actual competition has to be the key to fixing our railways, that or a fully nationalised sector with no competition and centrally set pricing. Of those the former is surely better.
If both Virgin and First ran alternating services on the ECML with Virgin offering tickets for £30 each way and First at £25 each way, that's competition. People can use airports without any difficulty and you get hundreds of airlines leaving from the same port there, I think it wouldn't be too difficult to get people to adjust to multiple train operators running the same routes. It is because of Ryanair and Easyjet that short haul flights are so much cheaper than they used to be, if the government had stepped in back then and told Easyjet and Ryanair that the existing routes BA ran were exclusive to BA and they they would have to wait until BA's licence ran out to bid for them, air travel would be as expensive as they have ever been.
This is pretty much already happening - it is called Open Access. Basically anybody can apply to the Office of the Rail Regulator (I think) to run a service outside a franchise. AIUI they cannot run the exact same route as the franchised operator, but they can offer alternative and upgraded services - for instance Hull Trains operates a service to that city from London, mostly using the EC route.
The idea is for people to spot potential markets and exploit them, something it is not necessarily in the interest of franchised operators to do.
There are two OA operators currently on the East Coast route (Hull trains and Grand Central), with a third possibly starting soon (Alliance Rail). Again AIUI, this is one of the reasons (along with reduced stock rental costs due to the IC225 fleet age) that the semi-nationalised EC route is profitable - the Network Rail track access costs are split between them.
One of the many things the pro-renationalisation peeps fail to mention are the OA operators which, like railfreight and the ROSCOs, they utterly ignore.
(Note, IANAE, and the OA<->franchise situation is very complex).
Remember when I pointed out UKIP were in favour of scrapping them, and the Tories rounded up to say it was funded by the "tooth fairy", and populist nonsense from a party with no MP's?
No I don’t actually – you are making most of that up and just repeating your claims.
What I do remember was several PBers asking who would foot the bill for the shortfall and you replied “immigrants of course”
'The conservatives have a particularly poor record on the deficit'
And Labour have a shadow Chancellor that didn't even know we had a structural deficit when his party was in power.
'Okay, well that's very frank. Let's turn to the structural deficit because that's still at the heart of the argument between yourself and the Conservatives. It is true to say, is it not, that in the run-up to the financial crisis Britain was running the worst structural deficit - that's the extra beyond the cycle - of any of the G7 countries?
ED BALLS:
I don't think we had a structural deficit at all in that period. We had a deficit …
ANDREW MARR:
We had a £37 billion structural deficit, didn't we?
As I've been saying for a while, I don't think interest rates are going to be increased anytime soon. The latest inflation figures provide additional evidence for that view. With the Eurozone flirting with outright deflation, the pound strong, and world commodity prices subdued, steady as she goes would seem to be the appropriate policy.
Note also: RPI 2.5%, and house prices easing off a smidgen.
Whilst I wouldn't disagree with that particularly, there is a valid school of thought that says that if things are good enough to enable you to increase rates without significant effect (even if you don't NEED to) you should do - as it is a way of 'reloading the gun' to provide you with ammunition for the future.
....
Since when has this government started "deleveraging"?!!
The deficit has fallen from £159bn to £100bn, while it does not fit the classic definition of reducing leverage, on a governmental basis reducing the deficit would count as deleverage as they are reducing the fiscal stimulus every year by around £20bn (apparently more this year, but I don't see it).
The govt are acting decicively to cut the structural deficit. It has not done this, it is not doing this, too early in order to not pull the rug from under the economy. It has succeeeded. Looking back at its published plans it was always set to back load them not front load. The OBR is forecasting a declining deficit in the future, with borrowing falling to £95.5bn in 2014-15 before achieving a surplus of £4.8bn in 2018-19. The surplus will be caused by structural cuts and cyclical revenues.
I think waiting for Thursday would be a good idea before declaring this year's deficit figure. The government need a big July surplus to wipe away the awful first quarter. I'm not ruling out that the deficit will fall to below £100bn, it just doesn't seem all that likely given that spending is up YoY and tax yield is only up marginally. Last year was bad for corporation tax receipts so there should be a marked improvement, if there isn't then one does wonder how the economy can grow so quickly without higher a tax yield.
My memory of the figures for last year was that tax yields were up especially corporation tax. In any event my point was to contradict the notion that the govt were not 'deleveraging'. It is controlling what it can control - its non-discretionary spending. It has proposals in nplace to cut the deficit. In normal time there would be amazement at cutting the deficit by over 60 billion - under normal times we would be into surplus with such cuts.
Remember when I pointed out UKIP were in favour of scrapping them, and the Tories rounded up to say it was funded by the "tooth fairy", and populist nonsense from a party with no MP's?
No I don’t actually – you are making most of that up and just repeating your claims.
What I do remember was several PBers asking who would foot the bill for the shortfall and you replied “immigrants of course”
I am most certainly not making it up.. look at yesterdays thread
The immigrants of course reply was a quip playing up to a stereotype
Osborne has done a good job on everything but spending. He spends like a socialist. And faced with a persistent deficit, his default reaction is to try to bully more out of the taxpayer, rather than cut the amounts he spends.
Thatcherites like myself look at the problem the other way round. The tax take is what we can afford. We should tailor our spending to that.
As I've been saying for a while, I don't think interest rates are going to be increased anytime soon. The latest inflation figures provide additional evidence for that view. With the Eurozone flirting with outright deflation, the pound strong, and world commodity prices subdued, steady as she goes would seem to be the appropriate policy.
Note also: RPI 2.5%, and house prices easing off a smidgen.
Whilst I wouldn't disagree with that particularly, there is a valid school of thought that says that if things are good enough to enable you to increase rates without significant effect (even if you don't NEED to) you should do - as it is a way of 'reloading the gun' to provide you with ammunition for the future.
....
Since when has this government started "deleveraging"?!!
The deficit has fallen from £159bn to £100bn, while it does not fit the classic definition of reducing leverage, on a governmental basis reducing the deficit would count as deleverage as they are reducing the fiscal stimulus every year by around £20bn (apparently more this year, but I don't see it).
The govt are acting decicively to cut the structural deficit. It has not done this, it is not doing this, too early in order to not pull the rug from under the economy. It has succeeeded. Looking back at its published plans it was always set to back load them not front load. The OBR is forecasting a declining deficit in the future, with borrowing falling to £95.5bn in 2014-15 before achieving a surplus of £4.8bn in 2018-19. The surplus will be caused by structural cuts and cyclical revenues.
I think waiting for Thursday would be a good idea before declaring this year's deficit figure. The government need a big July surplus to wipe away the awful first quarter. I'm not ruling out that the deficit will fall to below £100bn, it just doesn't seem all that likely given that spending is up YoY and tax yield is only up marginally. Last year was bad for corporation tax receipts so there should be a marked improvement, if there isn't then one does wonder how the economy can grow so quickly without higher a tax yield.
In normal time there would be amazement at cutting the deficit by over 60 billion - under normal times we would be into surplus with such cuts.
But the thing is we still have well over 100bn to cut off the deficit. And that requires a notably bigger private sector and a notably smaller public sector. None of which is at all easy to achieve or electorally rewarded. Thanks Gordon. And Ed (Balls).
'The conservatives have a particularly poor record on the deficit'
And Labour have a shadow Chancellor that didn't even know we had a structural deficit when his party was in power.
'Okay, well that's very frank. Let's turn to the structural deficit because that's still at the heart of the argument between yourself and the Conservatives. It is true to say, is it not, that in the run-up to the financial crisis Britain was running the worst structural deficit - that's the extra beyond the cycle - of any of the G7 countries?
ED BALLS:
I don't think we had a structural deficit at all in that period. We had a deficit …
ANDREW MARR:
We had a £37 billion structural deficit, didn't we?
Structural deficit seems to be one of those elastic concepts. We had a deficit then. We have a deficit now. To what extent it is or was structural is anyone's guess.
My memory of the figures for last year was that tax yields were up especially corporation tax. In any event my point was to contradict the notion that the govt were not 'deleveraging'. It is controlling what it can control - its non-discretionary spending. It has proposals in nplace to cut the deficit. In normal time there would be amazement at cutting the deficit by over 60 billion - under normal times we would be into surplus with such cuts.
Mr Path you are a clever fellow and clearly know about these things. Is not the structural deficit that bit that is left over when the economy returns to growth and the automatic stabilisers are no longer needed? I ask because we know that the economy is growing rapidly and we are rapidly approaching full employment (according to the figures) and yet the deficit seems stubbornly high? Why do you think that is?
Remember when I pointed out UKIP were in favour of scrapping them, and the Tories rounded up to say it was funded by the "tooth fairy", and populist nonsense from a party with no MP's?
Well, it was originally suggested by a Tory, & 100 MP's have already backed it
I pointed it out as populist nonsense typical of pre election years, but did not apply it specifically to UKIP. Other parties, even major ones like Labour are liable to populist nonsense.
Wales abolished parking charges 5 years ago, perhaps not the best use of money in the home nation with some of the worst NHS services.
'The conservatives have a particularly poor record on the deficit'
And Labour have a shadow Chancellor that didn't even know we had a structural deficit when his party was in power.
'Okay, well that's very frank. Let's turn to the structural deficit because that's still at the heart of the argument between yourself and the Conservatives. It is true to say, is it not, that in the run-up to the financial crisis Britain was running the worst structural deficit - that's the extra beyond the cycle - of any of the G7 countries?
ED BALLS:
I don't think we had a structural deficit at all in that period. We had a deficit …
ANDREW MARR:
We had a £37 billion structural deficit, didn't we?
I think the structural deficit was bigger than that. Accordiong to a BBC chart i saw it was nearer to 80 billion. Its a big number for balls to miss entirely. I assume that come the 2015 GE that Balls will be locked away in a cupboard.
In terms of its policy the Treasury said (c 2013 budget time)... "Given the unprecedented size of the UK's fiscal deficit and the record overhang of private sector debt, the Government's macroeconomic strategy is a combination of fiscal responsibility and monetary activism. The Government has set fiscal policy to meet the fiscal mandate which is to eliminate the structural current budget deficit over a 5 year forecast horizon. In response to slower than forecast growth due to the eurozone crisis and the damage done by the financial crisis, the Government has stuck to announced fiscal plans while allowing the automatic stabilisers to operate freely and has not tightened fiscal policy in order to chase the debt target. This strategy is well understood by economic commentators and financial markets and has maintained fiscal credibility while delivering a gradual and relatively steady reduction in the estimated structural deficit. Since the Government came to office the deficit is down by a third and the structural deficit has been reduced by more than any other G7 country. Over the forecast horizon the reduction in the structural deficit is around 1% of GDP per year, in line with the IMF's recommendation for advanced countries, despite the fact that the UK has one of the largest structural deficits in the developed world."
Remember when I pointed out UKIP were in favour of scrapping them, and the Tories rounded up to say it was funded by the "tooth fairy", and populist nonsense from a party with no MP's?
Well, it was originally suggested by a Tory, & 100 MP's have already backed it
I pointed it out as populist nonsense typical of pre election years, but did not apply it specifically to UKIP. Other parties, even major ones like Labour are liable to populist nonsense.
Wales abolished parking charges 5 years ago, perhaps not the best use of money in the home nation with some of the worst NHS services.
Well, its Tory MP's proposal with 100 backbenchers behind it anyway. I agree with them
Lets see if it is successful. Maybe yourself and @Charles can start a petition to see the charges reinstated!
Osborne has done a good job on everything but spending. He spends like a socialist. And faced with a persistent deficit, his default reaction is to try to bully more out of the taxpayer, rather than cut the amounts he spends.
Thatcherites like myself look at the problem the other way round. The tax take is what we can afford. We should tailor our spending to that.
You are absolutely 100% right. The trouble is Ozzy also wants to get re-elected. As Juncker said: 'We know what to do. We just don't know how to get re-elected afterwards'. If Ozzy had a risk-free hand to do as he pleased no doubt the policy mix would have been alot more Thatcherite - and the UK would have benefited accordingly. The reality is he's in coalition, in a country with a powerful and very shouty left and an electoral disadvantage for his party.
We have a deeply embedded entitlements mindset that has built up over a long time. What the country would REALLY benefit from is a cultural shift. I have hope. The young have plenty of get up and go:
Remember when I pointed out UKIP were in favour of scrapping them, and the Tories rounded up to say it was funded by the "tooth fairy", and populist nonsense from a party with no MP's?
Well, it was originally suggested by a Tory, & 100 MP's have already backed it
I pointed it out as populist nonsense typical of pre election years, but did not apply it specifically to UKIP. Other parties, even major ones like Labour are liable to populist nonsense.
Wales abolished parking charges 5 years ago, perhaps not the best use of money in the home nation with some of the worst NHS services.
Dr Sox, as a fellow with an inside track do you know how much hospitals actually make from these car-parking charges? Even information on one hospital might help inform the debate.
My guess that the sums are actually trivial compared the amount of money needed to run a hospital, especially when the operator has had their cut. These schemes always seem to have a parking company at the back of them who take their wack before the hospital sees a penny.
Remember when I pointed out UKIP were in favour of scrapping them, and the Tories rounded up to say it was funded by the "tooth fairy", and populist nonsense from a party with no MP's?
Well, it was originally suggested by a Tory, & 100 MP's have already backed it
I pointed it out as populist nonsense typical of pre election years, but did not apply it specifically to UKIP. Other parties, even major ones like Labour are liable to populist nonsense.
Wales abolished parking charges 5 years ago, perhaps not the best use of money in the home nation with some of the worst NHS services.
Dr Sox, as a fellow with an inside track do you know how much hospitals actually make from these car-parking charges? Even information on one hospital might help inform the debate.
My guess that the sums are actually trivial compared the amount of money needed to run a hospital, especially when the operator has had their cut. These schemes always seem to have a parking company at the back of them who take their wack before the hospital sees a penny.
From 2010
Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals Trust clamped 1,671 cars and made £1,851,271 profit from its car park in just one year, according to research identifying the UK's worst NHS hospital car parks.
My preferred solution for the railways would be to have them state run and commuter season tickets sold at the revenue maximisation point.
There should be a formula linking season ticket prices to the distance travelled and the income of the person buying the ticket. Just like VAT, travel costs have a regressive impact on disposable income.
Hmm I was thinking yesterday that hospital car parks are a bit regressive actually. I guess I'm changing my mind and making it up as I go along on this one ^_~
Not that regressive, surely. A lot of poor people don't have cars.
Remember when I pointed out UKIP were in favour of scrapping them, and the Tories rounded up to say it was funded by the "tooth fairy", and populist nonsense from a party with no MP's?
Well, it was originally suggested by a Tory, & 100 MP's have already backed it
I pointed it out as populist nonsense typical of pre election years, but did not apply it specifically to UKIP. Other parties, even major ones like Labour are liable to populist nonsense.
Wales abolished parking charges 5 years ago, perhaps not the best use of money in the home nation with some of the worst NHS services.
Dr Sox, as a fellow with an inside track do you know how much hospitals actually make from these car-parking charges? Even information on one hospital might help inform the debate.
My guess that the sums are actually trivial compared the amount of money needed to run a hospital, especially when the operator has had their cut. These schemes always seem to have a parking company at the back of them who take their wack before the hospital sees a penny.
From 2010
Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals Trust clamped 1,671 cars and made £1,851,271 profit from its car park in just one year, according to research identifying the UK's worst NHS hospital car parks.
Interesting. That trust has an income of £331m. So car parking in rough and ready figures accounts for 0.6%. A decent management could find that figure from productivity efficiency savings without breaking a sweat or affecting service delivery.
Remember when I pointed out UKIP were in favour of scrapping them, and the Tories rounded up to say it was funded by the "tooth fairy", and populist nonsense from a party with no MP's?
Well, it was originally suggested by a Tory, & 100 MP's have already backed it
I pointed it out as populist nonsense typical of pre election years, but did not apply it specifically to UKIP. Other parties, even major ones like Labour are liable to populist nonsense.
Wales abolished parking charges 5 years ago, perhaps not the best use of money in the home nation with some of the worst NHS services.
Dr Sox, as a fellow with an inside track do you know how much hospitals actually make from these car-parking charges? Even information on one hospital might help inform the debate.
My guess that the sums are actually trivial compared the amount of money needed to run a hospital, especially when the operator has had their cut. These schemes always seem to have a parking company at the back of them who take their wack before the hospital sees a penny.
From 2010
Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals Trust clamped 1,671 cars and made £1,851,271 profit from its car park in just one year, according to research identifying the UK's worst NHS hospital car parks.
Interesting. That trust has an income of £331m. So car parking in rough and ready figures accounts for 0.6%. A decent management could find that figure from productivity efficiency savings without breaking a sweat or affecting service delivery.
1.8 million is not to be sneezed at! And that is the profit. You also need to consider the cost of providing free parking (such as ticket validation in wards, outpatients and casualty) so the cost to Epsom and St Helier of providing free parking would be considerably in excess of 1.8 million.
Osborne has done a good job on everything but spending. He spends like a socialist. And faced with a persistent deficit, his default reaction is to try to bully more out of the taxpayer, rather than cut the amounts he spends.
Thatcherites like myself look at the problem the other way round. The tax take is what we can afford. We should tailor our spending to that.
You are absolutely 100% right. The trouble is Ozzy also wants to get re-elected. As Juncker said: 'We know what to do. We just don't know how to get re-elected afterwards'. If Ozzy had a risk-free hand to do as he pleased no doubt the policy mix would have been alot more Thatcherite - and the UK would have benefited accordingly. The reality is he's in coalition, in a country with a powerful and very shouty left and an electoral disadvantage for his party.
We have a deeply embedded entitlements mindset that has built up over a long time. What the country would REALLY benefit from is a cultural shift. I have hope. The young have plenty of get up and go:
Absolutely correct, I think it is remarkable how much this coalition has achieved, how many less public sector workers are there now than in 2010. Even the slightest attempt at cutting anything makes headline news, look at teachers, college lecturers, fire fighters etc. Remember those college lecturers who went on a one day strike one day before the end of summer term, they are now in their 6th week of their summer holiday with another 3 1/2 to go, and they think they are hard done by. You are so right attitudes need to change and the status quo cannot go on. Why do they need 9 weeks paid leave in the summer? Surely for 5 of those weeks they can do something else to help the country
Remember when I pointed out UKIP were in favour of scrapping them, and the Tories rounded up to say it was funded by the "tooth fairy", and populist nonsense from a party with no MP's?
Well, it was originally suggested by a Tory, & 100 MP's have already backed it
I pointed it out as populist nonsense typical of pre election years, but did not apply it specifically to UKIP. Other parties, even major ones like Labour are liable to populist nonsense.
Wales abolished parking charges 5 years ago, perhaps not the best use of money in the home nation with some of the worst NHS services.
Dr Sox, as a fellow with an inside track do you know how much hospitals actually make from these car-parking charges? Even information on one hospital might help inform the debate.
My guess that the sums are actually trivial compared the amount of money needed to run a hospital, especially when the operator has had their cut. These schemes always seem to have a parking company at the back of them who take their wack before the hospital sees a penny.
From 2010
Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals Trust clamped 1,671 cars and made £1,851,271 profit from its car park in just one year, according to research identifying the UK's worst NHS hospital car parks.
Interesting. That trust has an income of £331m. So car parking in rough and ready figures accounts for 0.6%. A decent management could find that figure from productivity efficiency savings without breaking a sweat or affecting service delivery.
1.8 million is not to be sneezed at! And that is the profit. You also need to consider the cost of providing free parking (such as ticket validation in wards, outpatients and casualty) so the cost to Epsom and St Helier of providing free parking would be considerably in excess of 1.8 million.
In my opinion its wrong for the State to make money out of people visiting their poorly relatives.... if hospitals started charging visitors to enter the wards, a campaign to reverse the decision would be up against the same arguments you use now
Also, the hospital wouldn't be losing the whole 1.8m as those who are using the car park but not visiting the hospital would still be charged...perhaps more than they are now as "visitors"
Despite the fact Labour won the seat in the by-election, Corby may be the best of those seats for the Tories in the Ashcroft polling. Demographic change.
For many hospitals there would be no need to verify 'genuine visitors' using the car park. For example, the main hospitals in Bishop Auckland, Darlo and Gateshead are all in parts of town where you wouldn't use the car park unless you were going to the hospital. In fact, in Bishop I usually park in the street (for free!) under 5 mins walk from the hospital when I need to visit.
I accept this isn't the case everywhere, but just pointing out that not all hospital car parks would be open to abuse by folks working in town or doing their shopping on the High St.
Despite the fact Labour won the seat in the by-election, Corby may be the best of those seats for the Tories in the Ashcroft polling. Demographic change.
Is there a hidden plan to kick out all of the Scots post-referendum that we should know about? :-)
Remember when I pointed out UKIP were in favour of scrapping them, and the Tories rounded up to say it was funded by the "tooth fairy", and populist nonsense from a party with no MP's?
Well, it was originally suggested by a Tory, & 100 MP's have already backed it
I pointed it out as populist nonsense typical of pre election years, but did not apply it specifically to UKIP. Other parties, even major ones like Labour are liable to populist nonsense.
Wales abolished parking charges 5 years ago, perhaps not the best use of money in the home nation with some of the worst NHS services.
Dr Sox, as a fellow with an inside track do you know how much hospitals actually make from these car-parking charges? Even information on one hospital might help inform the debate.
My guess that the sums are actually trivial compared the amount of money needed to run a hospital, especially when the operator has had their cut. These schemes always seem to have a parking company at the back of them who take their wack before the hospital sees a penny.
From 2010
Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals Trust clamped 1,671 cars and made £1,851,271 profit from its car park in just one year, according to research identifying the UK's worst NHS hospital car parks.
Interesting. That trust has an income of £331m. So car parking in rough and ready figures accounts for 0.6%. A decent management could find that figure from productivity efficiency savings without breaking a sweat or affecting service delivery.
1.8 million is not to be sneezed at! And that is the profit. You also need to consider the cost of providing free parking (such as ticket validation in wards, outpatients and casualty) so the cost to Epsom and St Helier of providing free parking would be considerably in excess of 1.8 million.
In my opinion its wrong for the State to make money out of people visiting their poorly relatives.... if hospitals started charging visitors to enter the wards, a campaign to reverse the decision would use the same arguments you use now
Hospital Trusts introduced the car parking fees, not the 'State' - as for charging entry to wards, if it could be done, they will try that as well ; )
For many hospitals there would be no need to verify 'genuine visitors' using the car park. For example, the main hospitals in Bishop Auckland, Darlo and Gateshead are all in parts of town where you wouldn't use the car park unless you were going to the hospital. In fact, in Bishop I usually park in the street (for free!) under 5 mins walk from the hospital when I need to visit.
I accept this isn't the case everywhere, but just pointing out that not all hospital car parks would be open to abuse by folks working in town or doing their shopping on the High St.
What about people who park in the hospital car park, visit someone in the hospital, and then do their shopping in the town?
For many hospitals there would be no need to verify 'genuine visitors' using the car park. For example, the main hospitals in Bishop Auckland, Darlo and Gateshead are all in parts of town where you wouldn't use the car park unless you were going to the hospital. In fact, in Bishop I usually park in the street (for free!) under 5 mins walk from the hospital when I need to visit.
I accept this isn't the case everywhere, but just pointing out that not all hospital car parks would be open to abuse by folks working in town or doing their shopping on the High St.
What about people who park in the hospital car park, visit someone in the hospital, and then do their shopping in the town?
Despite the fact Labour won the seat in the by-election, Corby may be the best of those seats for the Tories in the Ashcroft polling. Demographic change.
I think Pudsey will be the best (Going off local results), but I wait to be proved wrong
Despite the fact Labour won the seat in the by-election, Corby may be the best of those seats for the Tories in the Ashcroft polling. Demographic change.
Is there a hidden plan to kick out all of the Scots post-referendum that we should know about? :-)
No, post a yes vote, Scots living in England will be treated like the Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbour.
A special interment camp will be built at Middlesbrough to hold them.
Except for Karen Gillan. She will be interned with me.
Why do they need 9 weeks paid leave in the summer? Surely for 5 of those weeks they can do something else to help the country
I didn;t read it, but the Sunday Times article that we are spending 30bn on 500,000 'problem' families was certainly an eyebrow raiser, and one that has attracted little censure in the left wing press, that I could see.
Mr. Isam, worth mentioning there's a gulf of difference between a comedy and an individual seeking election. (A better comparison would be Harman's ginger rodent comment).
Despite the fact Labour won the seat in the by-election, Corby may be the best of those seats for the Tories in the Ashcroft polling. Demographic change.
Is there a hidden plan to kick out all of the Scots post-referendum that we should know about? :-)
No, post a yes vote, Scots living in England will be treated like the Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbour.
A special interment camp will be built at Middlesbrough to hold them.
Except for Karen Gillan. She will be interned with me.
Not sure who is most deserving of sympathy - those interned in Middlesbrough - or that poor unfortunate girl... ; )
Despite the fact Labour won the seat in the by-election, Corby may be the best of those seats for the Tories in the Ashcroft polling. Demographic change.
Is there a hidden plan to kick out all of the Scots post-referendum that we should know about? :-)
No, post a yes vote, Scots living in England will be treated like the Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbour.
A special interment camp will be built at Middlesbrough to hold them.
Except for Karen Gillan. She will be interned with me.
Not sure who is most deserving of sympathy - those interned in Middlesbrough - or that poor unfortunate girl... ; )
Those in Middlesbrough. In the dictionary the definition of shit hole is "see Middlesbrough"
1.8 million is not to be sneezed at! And that is the profit. You also need to consider the cost of providing free parking (such as ticket validation in wards, outpatients and casualty) so the cost to Epsom and St Helier of providing free parking would be considerably in excess of 1.8 million.
No Doc the cost to those hospitals (there are a group of them in that figure) of not charging for parking would be £1.8m. There is no need to do ticket validation etc. if the parking were free. The sums are comparatively trivial (0.6% of income let us not forget), the people who really make out of these schemes are the parking companies.
As for abuse of hospital car parks I wonder how much of a problem that really would be. In some hospitals maybe, but I doubt there are many. Mostly because hospitals with land for car parks tend not be in places where people would want to park while they go off and do other things. Car sharers would be a problem in commuter areas but other than that?
What is the problem that hospital car park charges are designed to solve? Is it a lack of money? Is it that patients and visitors can't park? Probably it is both in some places? Making people pay seems the wrong solution for both.
When my God-daughter lived in the Netherlands we used to go over to visit by train and also get about the country by train. The inter-city services (there's a phrase from the past) between here and there and internally were very swish and modern. Once you get down to local rail it is decidedly below par and worse than in the UK. Travelling in France we found the same. As far as fares go, we were on holiday and so didn't take much notice but they weren't so cheap or so expensive as to make me think they were unusual.
UK railways are in my experience pretty damn good, but in absolute terms (ignoring any international comparisons) sodding expensive.
I travel by train quite a lot when I'm on holiday and I agree. Outside the Thalys services and probably the next level down, the UK service seems good in comparison - new comfortable trains, regular services, good infrastructure (information systems etc). In Portugal for example, I found that within the immediate environs of Lisbon trains were modern and frequent (although within Lisbon itself, complex and with a funny ticketing system), outside the Lisbon area, slow and irregular with old rolling stock.
The one advantage that many European services have is that you can reach many out of the way places, albeit with only a few journeys a day and often very slowly on old stock. Here we would close those lines and stations as uneconomic.
If you look at France, there are whole swathes of the south where there is now no railway at all.
I live on an SWT line about 40 miles from London, I can get to Waterloo in 45 minutes, there are 3 trains an hour (4 at peak times, 2 most of Sunday) and can get a fast train home at 23:38 if I go to London for a drink (and I don't think that's the last one). The cost even seems reasonable if I can use my Network Card, although the £13 minimum on weekdays does put me off using it for local journeys in the evenings which now seem far too expensive.
It would be interesting to see a comparative cost per mile, taking into account both what the taxpayer pays and the passenger - are European services cheaper, or do they just put more of the cost on the passenger?
@MrLlama – according to this article, Hospital Trusts took £1 billion in car parking fees between 2002-2012 – according to their list of ‘worst offenders’ £1.8m would not even make the top 10.
@MrLlama – according to this article, Hospital Trusts took £1 billion in car parking fees between 2002-2012 – according to their list of ‘worst offenders’ £1.8m would not even make the top 10.
Hospital trusts had to provide the car parking facilities. The fees work out at 200 million a year for all the trusts across the country. Should the NHS act as a free car park for all the country? I spent £5 on fees yesterday. In the past when I have taken relatives early in the morning they have been in had x-ray and out and no fees paid. The NHS spends over 120 billion.
For many hospitals there would be no need to verify 'genuine visitors' using the car park. For example, the main hospitals in Bishop Auckland, Darlo and Gateshead are all in parts of town where you wouldn't use the car park unless you were going to the hospital. In fact, in Bishop I usually park in the street (for free!) under 5 mins walk from the hospital when I need to visit.
I accept this isn't the case everywhere, but just pointing out that not all hospital car parks would be open to abuse by folks working in town or doing their shopping on the High St.
What about people who park in the hospital car park, visit someone in the hospital, and then do their shopping in the town?
I'd say fair enough
Without car parking charges there would be no incentive for people to leave the car park and make room for others.
Comments
Best performing economy in 2014 of the larger econmies in the world equates to a shambles? Interesting! I am sure that if Labour were in and the economy was booming like it is you would be saying its a shambles.
The WEF downsides on the UK are the debt/deficit picture and an overgenerous welfare system. Ozzy and IDS are working on it (too slow but they're on it). Actually I think WEF competitiveness ranking ought to be an explicit target of every government everywhere. Hollande could certainly do with a dose of WEF common sense.
Any PB views on where a Miliband premiership would take the UK on this?
UK railways are in my experience pretty damn good, but in absolute terms (ignoring any international comparisons) sodding expensive.
Remember when I pointed out UKIP were in favour of scrapping them, and the Tories rounded up to say it was funded by the "tooth fairy", and populist nonsense from a party with no MP's?
Well, it was originally suggested by a Tory, & 100 MP's have already backed it
http://www.yourharlow.com/2014/07/03/over-100-mps-back-robert-halfons-hospital-car-park-campaign/
http://www.roberthalfonblog.com/?s=hospital
Much of what Brown thought was a cyclical defict was structural. A big chunk of what Brown thought was a permanent part of the economy was only temporary. The revenues from the financial sector disappeared forever. The fall GPD was not cyclical it was structural. Gone forever. I seem to remember Mervyn King saying the loss was 5% permanent loss to the economy- maybe more.
Osborne has done a good job. Its hard I know when people have to admit they are wrong (just look at Balls) but sometimes its best to admit it and move on.
Will say that of the private operators I'd much prefer Virgin to have the franchise over First group any day of the week and twice on sundays though.
The idea is for people to spot potential markets and exploit them, something it is not necessarily in the interest of franchised operators to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_operator
There are two OA operators currently on the East Coast route (Hull trains and Grand Central), with a third possibly starting soon (Alliance Rail). Again AIUI, this is one of the reasons (along with reduced stock rental costs due to the IC225 fleet age) that the semi-nationalised EC route is profitable - the Network Rail track access costs are split between them.
One of the many things the pro-renationalisation peeps fail to mention are the OA operators which, like railfreight and the ROSCOs, they utterly ignore.
(Note, IANAE, and the OA<->franchise situation is very complex).
What I do remember was several PBers asking who would foot the bill for the shortfall and you replied “immigrants of course”
'The conservatives have a particularly poor record on the deficit'
And Labour have a shadow Chancellor that didn't even know we had a structural deficit when his party was in power.
'Okay, well that's very frank. Let's turn to the structural deficit because that's still at the heart of the argument between yourself and the Conservatives. It is true to say, is it not, that in the run-up to the financial crisis Britain was running the worst structural deficit - that's the extra beyond the cycle - of any of the G7 countries?
ED BALLS:
I don't think we had a structural deficit at all in that period. We had a deficit …
ANDREW MARR:
We had a £37 billion structural deficit, didn't we?
In any event my point was to contradict the notion that the govt were not 'deleveraging'. It is controlling what it can control - its non-discretionary spending. It has proposals in nplace to cut the deficit. In normal time there would be amazement at cutting the deficit by over 60 billion - under normal times we would be into surplus with such cuts.
Mr. Zims, Balls is a shyster of the first water.
The immigrants of course reply was a quip playing up to a stereotype
Osborne has done a good job on everything but spending. He spends like a socialist. And faced with a persistent deficit, his default reaction is to try to bully more out of the taxpayer, rather than cut the amounts he spends.
Thatcherites like myself look at the problem the other way round. The tax take is what we can afford. We should tailor our spending to that.
'Mr. Zims, Balls is a shyster of the first water.'
I had him down as a clown.
'But you can hardly say there wasn't a structural deficit in the run-up to that crisis?
ED BALLS:
No. Look, the issue was …
ANDREW MARR:
Not only was there a structural deficit at that point. It was the largest of any of the G7 countries.
ED BALLS:
Look, we had a deficit. Yes, we had a deficit.
ANDREW MARR:
That's what the OECD says.
Wales abolished parking charges 5 years ago, perhaps not the best use of money in the home nation with some of the worst NHS services.
In terms of its policy the Treasury said (c 2013 budget time)...
"Given the unprecedented size of the UK's fiscal deficit and the record overhang of private sector debt, the Government's macroeconomic strategy is a combination of fiscal responsibility and monetary activism. The Government has set fiscal policy to meet the fiscal mandate which is to eliminate the structural current budget deficit over a 5 year forecast horizon. In response to slower than forecast growth due to the eurozone crisis and the damage done by the financial crisis, the Government has stuck to announced fiscal plans while allowing the automatic stabilisers to operate freely and has not tightened fiscal policy in order to chase the debt target. This strategy is well understood by economic commentators and financial markets and has maintained fiscal credibility while delivering a gradual and relatively steady reduction in the estimated structural deficit. Since the Government came to office the deficit is down by a third and the structural deficit has been reduced by more than any other G7 country. Over the forecast horizon the reduction in the structural deficit is around 1% of GDP per year, in line with the IMF's recommendation for advanced countries, despite the fact that the UK has one of the largest structural deficits in the developed world."
Lets see if it is successful. Maybe yourself and @Charles can start a petition to see the charges reinstated!
We have a deeply embedded entitlements mindset that has built up over a long time. What the country would REALLY benefit from is a cultural shift. I have hope. The young have plenty of get up and go:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728732/That-s-one-way-job-Graduate-holds-sign-advertising-rush-hour-Waterloo-station-s-got-interview.html
My guess that the sums are actually trivial compared the amount of money needed to run a hospital, especially when the operator has had their cut. These schemes always seem to have a parking company at the back of them who take their wack before the hospital sees a penny.
Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals Trust clamped 1,671 cars and made £1,851,271 profit from its car park in just one year, according to research identifying the UK's worst NHS hospital car parks.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/jun/09/nhs-generating-millions-parking-charges
Also, the hospital wouldn't be losing the whole 1.8m as those who are using the car park but not visiting the hospital would still be charged...perhaps more than they are now as "visitors"
I accept this isn't the case everywhere, but just pointing out that not all hospital car parks would be open to abuse by folks working in town or doing their shopping on the High St.
A special interment camp will be built at Middlesbrough to hold them.
Except for Karen Gillan. She will be interned with me.
I didn;t read it, but the Sunday Times article that we are spending 30bn on 500,000 'problem' families was certainly an eyebrow raiser, and one that has attracted little censure in the left wing press, that I could see.
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2014/08/19/the-bbc-s-ting-tong-hypocrisy-i-won-t-defend-janice-atkinson-but-the-bbc-need-to-answer-questions
It it no way proves David Cameron right in no way.
As for abuse of hospital car parks I wonder how much of a problem that really would be. In some hospitals maybe, but I doubt there are many. Mostly because hospitals with land for car parks tend not be in places where people would want to park while they go off and do other things. Car sharers would be a problem in commuter areas but other than that?
What is the problem that hospital car park charges are designed to solve? Is it a lack of money? Is it that patients and visitors can't park? Probably it is both in some places? Making people pay seems the wrong solution for both.
The one advantage that many European services have is that you can reach many out of the way places, albeit with only a few journeys a day and often very slowly on old stock. Here we would close those lines and stations as uneconomic.
If you look at France, there are whole swathes of the south where there is now no railway at all.
I live on an SWT line about 40 miles from London, I can get to Waterloo in 45 minutes, there are 3 trains an hour (4 at peak times, 2 most of Sunday) and can get a fast train home at 23:38 if I go to London for a drink (and I don't think that's the last one). The cost even seems reasonable if I can use my Network Card, although the £13 minimum on weekdays does put me off using it for local journeys in the evenings which now seem far too expensive.
It would be interesting to see a comparative cost per mile, taking into account both what the taxpayer pays and the passenger - are European services cheaper, or do they just put more of the cost on the passenger?
Mail = caveat emptor
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220458/Hospitals-1bn-parking-charges-years-Relatives-patients-stumping-double-decade-ago.html
The NHS spends over 120 billion.