the East Coast franchise did not perform better when Nationalised. In the initial franchise period the service was massively better than when it had been nationalised and the service has definitely dropped since it went back under Government control.
the East Coast franchise did not perform better when Nationalised. In the initial franchise period the service was massively better than when it had been nationalised and the service has definitely dropped since it went back under Government control.
"Turnover for the year amounted to £665.8m, an increase of £20m, leaving a profit before tax and service payments to the Department for Transport of £195.7m, an increase of £13m.
"Passenger journeys at East Coast, which runs trains from London to the North East, Yorkshire and Scotland, increased by 2.1%, while customer satisfaction rose by 2%, and the latest punctuality figures were its best since records began in 1999."
It's a pretty small sample size. Are they taking into account the loss of the franchise money into account?
Looking at the big picture, passenger numbers have grown massively since privatisation after having been falling for years beforehand.
And so they should have bloody well done, given the vast increase in the subsidy!
Richard's contention was specifically about East Coast since it was renationalised. His contention was provably wrong.
Hmmm, again you link subsidy and passenger growth. In the last thread, you said subsidy had doubled, and so had passenger numbers. If those two facts are true, then the privatised industry is just as efficient wrt subsidy as BR was.
Which is rather a problem for your argument.
You also have to be careful about the figures. Several different things have to be factored in: for instance, one-off infrastructure costs to expand the network such as the WCML upgrade or Crossrail, and the day-to-day running and maintenance costs.
When you discuss EC's headline return to taxpayers, I'm surprised you do not acknowledge the role the Open Access operators have on that route, or the fact that South West Trains returned even more.
If the railways were renationalised, would you move National Rail's debt back onto the government's books?
Where is the rail debt at the moment ?
I thought Network Rail had been effectively re-nationalised?
I find it curious that the government is expending any time and energy whatsoever on the question of switching off analogue radio signals by 2015, which is almost completely irrelevant to most people, when they could and should IMO be concentrating on, for instance, speeding up the rollout of super-fast broadband, which is very relevant and important to most people. The telephone exchange in my area, for example, was last updated in 1973 I believe.
Can someone confirm/deny this for me? I think before today's figures annualised growth in wages - at least on some measure - was 2.2%. Inflation's now at 2.1% (CPI). What's the preferred comparison of Ed Miliband (the 40 of 41 months one)?
"The ONS, for instance, revealed that average weekly earnings excluding bonus payments rose by 0.8% comparing July to September 2013 with the same period a year earlier"
I think wage inflation hit 2.2% in PB Hodges world.
I think it was an annualised rate based on a more recent period, perhaps 3 or even one month.
You are thinking of the recently published Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. However that is year ending April 2013 only
"In April 2013 median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees were £517, up 2.2% from £506 in 2012."
After the good German confidence number earlier this morning, is an absolutely stellar UK one. Factory orders in the UK are at an 18 year high! From the FT: "A survey of nearly 400 companies undertaken by the Confederation of British Industry for December came in at its best level since February 1995, reading showing an order book balance of +12."
Early indicators of retail sales not so good though Robert. The British Retail Consortion have reported "footfall" down on the high street and in shopping centres in November.
Factory orders up and Christmas shopping down will of course please our Warwickshire and Lincolnshire malcontents, but Q4 GDP growth is very closely linked to an upturn in the purchase of such fripperies as Food & Non-Alcoholic Beverages, Bread, Meat, Sweets, Alcoholic Drinks & Tobacco, Beer, Wine and Spirits.
How reliable are HighStreet figures as an indication of Christmas spend. If the experience of those I know is anthing to go by (and I appreciate that this is entirly anecdoal), the online market is absolutely booming.
On my pet subject of Heathrow. Sense has prevailed. It looks like the leading option is the NW runway at Heathrow, unsurprised they picked it since the plan is easily expandable to four runways.
Having two, two runway airports is useless, more flights to Malaga and Faro isn't going to help grow our exports. Gatwick need to give up or make their second runway option an addition to a third runway at Heathrow. The simple fact is that there is already spare capacity at Gatwick that airlines like China Eastern have given up because it is uneconomic to fly from there with half-empty planes.
Glad they ruled out Stansted, it's on the wrong side of London and it's also horrible. It would need far too much investment.
I think the timetable is too long also. A third runway should be the first bill to go through Parliament in June 2015 whichever party wins power and it should be ready to go by 2019 with the extra terminal building ready for 2023. We've already wasted 10 years (five under Labour, and five under the coalition) on not starting the process, we can't afford to waste another 10 years.
I find it curious that the government is expending any time and energy whatsoever on the question of switching off analogue radio signals by 2015, which is almost completely irrelevant to most people, when they could and should IMO be concentrating on, for instance, speeding up the rollout of super-fast broadband, which is very relevant and important to most people. The telephone exchange in my area, for example, was last updated in 1973 I believe.
A similar situation is the way in which various former DJs have been arrested for allegedly pinching young women's bottoms in 1967 but people who mutilate young girls' genitals in 2013 are not arrested.
I have commented on my belief that FGM is GBH, and that parents are accessories. However, I think many of the allegations are significantly more serious than simply 'pinching girls bottoms', and that comparing crimes - as a general rule - is something that we should steer well clear of.
One has to have a complaint though, and identification of the perpetrators. AFAIK the complaints come well after the event, rather like the DJ's but it's difficult for the complainants to identify the people who actually carried out the mutilation. Again AFAIK no-one has been able, or willing, to prove that female relatives participated in the act.
'We all know where Lord Ashcroft stands politically but that does not stand in the way of his search for as accurate a picture.'
Except when he strays across the border.
Ashcroft Headline: Most Scots back nuclear deterrent.
Actual poll: Question – In principle, do you support or oppose the United Kingdom having nuclear weapons?
37 per cent of respondents said they supported 48 per cent said they opposed 15 per cent said they didn’t know
His recent independence poll (cobbled together from 3 different polls taken over 6 months) was also the most useless contribution to the debate until Carmichael got on to his hind legs.
Yeah but the SNP never quote his polls in press releases do they?
or do they, when the polling is favourable to them?
the East Coast franchise did not perform better when Nationalised. In the initial franchise period the service was massively better than when it had been nationalised and the service has definitely dropped since it went back under Government control.
the East Coast franchise did not perform better when Nationalised. In the initial franchise period the service was massively better than when it had been nationalised and the service has definitely dropped since it went back under Government control.
"Turnover for the year amounted to £665.8m, an increase of £20m, leaving a profit before tax and service payments to the Department for Transport of £195.7m, an increase of £13m.
"Passenger journeys at East Coast, which runs trains from London to the North East, Yorkshire and Scotland, increased by 2.1%, while customer satisfaction rose by 2%, and the latest punctuality figures were its best since records began in 1999."
It's a pretty small sample size. Are they taking into account the loss of the franchise money into account?
Looking at the big picture, passenger numbers have grown massively since privatisation after having been falling for years beforehand.
And so they should have bloody well done, given the vast increase in the subsidy!
Richard's contention was specifically about East Coast since it was renationalised. His contention was provably wrong.
Hmmm, again you link subsidy and passenger growth. In the last thread, you said subsidy had doubled, and so had passenger numbers. If those two facts are true, then the privatised industry is just as efficient wrt subsidy as BR was.
Which is rather a problem for your argument.
You also have to be careful about the figures. Several different things have to be factored in: for instance, one-off infrastructure costs to expand the network such as the WCML upgrade or Crossrail, and the day-to-day running and maintenance costs.
When you discuss EC's headline return to taxpayers, I'm surprised you do not acknowledge the role the Open Access operators have on that route, or the fact that South West Trains returned even more.
If the railways were renationalised, would you move National Rail's debt back onto the government's books?
Where is the rail debt at the moment ?
If you mean Network Rail, then it's vast, and getting vaster. About £20 billion today, it is believed to increase up to £50 billion by 2020. This is unsustainable.
Gordon Brown set NR up so that although the government guarantees any loans NR takes out, the debt does not go onto the government's books. This is a crazy situation that may lead to fiscal disaster.
On my pet subject of Heathrow. Sense has prevailed. It looks like the leading option is the NW runway at Heathrow, unsurprised they picked it since the plan is easily expandable to four runways.
Having two, two runway airports is useless, more flights to Malaga and Faro isn't going to help grow our exports. Gatwick need to give up or make their second runway option an addition to a third runway at Heathrow. The simple fact is that there is already spare capacity at Gatwick that airlines like China Eastern have given up because it is uneconomic to fly from there with half-empty planes.
Glad they ruled out Stansted, it's on the wrong side of London and it's also horrible. It would need far too much investment.
I think the timetable is too long also. A third runway should be the first bill to go through Parliament in June 2015 whichever party wins power and it should be ready to go by 2019 with the extra terminal building ready for 2023. We've already wasted 10 years (five under Labour, and five under the coalition) on not starting the process, we can't afford to waste another 10 years.
I'm in two minds about this. I'm concerned that whilst our Middle Eastern competitors are building international hubs with up to six runways, we will be trying to compete with just three.
Britain has a rather poor history of doing the absolute minimum of investment, witness the M25, rather than future proofing that investment. In the long run, it costs much more.
But if they've crunched the numbers and come up with that answer, fair enough. Although it sounds as though there are still three options on the table ...
If you had a ~£500k mortgage balance and you were remortgaging now, house value about £1.1k, would you go for
1/ a 2 year fix at 1.88% 2/ a 5 year fix at 2.69% 3/ a 10 year fix at 3.44%?
Would you feel safe taking the 1.88 on the basis you'd still get a cheap deal in 2 years' time?
Don't speculate with your home.
3.44% is such a fabulous rate for long term money you should lock it in asap. It may not be the cheapest, but given the risk that interest rates could revert significantly higher over a 5 year view, I'd grab it with both hands.
Just make sure you have portability and ability to repay a proportion of capital at will and without penalty.
Agree generally but offsetting an option depending on their cash position however and I can't see a 3.44% but can see a 3.84% so that might be a typo.
Depends on 'life' position though too, as portability is a v limited place to be as it's at the whim of that lender at that point in time and their criteria then.
Indeed, it always depends on the lender's criteria. But with an equity cushion of >50% then they are going to have a hard time claiming that it is outwith their criteria.
(I have no restrictions on portability of my mortgage from RBS. And they gave me such a silly rate I have no incentive to pay it back - 1.14% over base for life)
the East Coast franchise did not perform better when Nationalised. In the initial franchise period the service was massively better than when it had been nationalised and the service has definitely dropped since it went back under Government control.
the East Coast franchise did not perform better when Nationalised. In the initial franchise period the service was massively better than when it had been nationalised and the service has definitely dropped since it went back under Government control.
"Turnover for the year amounted to £665.8m, an increase of £20m, leaving a profit before tax and service payments to the Department for Transport of £195.7m, an increase of £13m.
"Passenger journeys at East Coast, which runs trains from London to the North East, Yorkshire and Scotland, increased by 2.1%, while customer satisfaction rose by 2%, and the latest punctuality figures were its best since records began in 1999."
It's a pretty small sample size. Are they taking into account the loss of the franchise money into account?
Looking at the big picture, passenger numbers have grown massively since privatisation after having been falling for years beforehand.
And so they should have bloody well done, given the vast increase in the subsidy!
Richard's contention was specifically about East Coast since it was renationalised. His contention was provably wrong.
Hmmm, again you link subsidy and passenger growth. In the last thread, you said subsidy had doubled, and so had passenger numbers. If those two facts are true, then the privatised industry is just as efficient wrt subsidy as BR was.
Which is rather a problem for your argument.
You also have to be careful about the figures. Several different things have to be factored in: for instance, one-off infrastructure costs to expand the network such as the WCML upgrade or Crossrail, and the day-to-day running and maintenance costs.
When you discuss EC's headline return to taxpayers, I'm surprised you do not acknowledge the role the Open Access operators have on that route, or the fact that South West Trains returned even more.
If the railways were renationalised, would you move National Rail's debt back onto the government's books?
Where is the rail debt at the moment ?
If you mean Network Rail, then it's vast, and getting vaster. About £20 billion today, it is believed to increase up to £50 billion by 2020. This is unsustainable.
Gordon Brown set NR up so that although the government guarantees any loans NR takes out, the debt does not go onto the government's books. This is a crazy situation that may lead to fiscal disaster.
YouGov @YouGov 7s Supporters of government cuts now outnumber opponents for the first time in three years - http://y-g.co/18wpRqF
the tide is turning...
Despite the best efforts of Polly Toynbee (FPT - her latest Guardian article) to portray the Government (well, specifically the blue part of it) as supporters of eugenics, and probably eaters of babies as well.
Toynbee has become nothing more than a national laughing stock simply because she is so over the top. Nobody with a brain pays any attention to her and she has no effect on general political decourse.
You mean a bit like SeanT but without a sense of humour
Except that SeanT doesn't take himself seriously...
On my pet subject of Heathrow. Sense has prevailed. It looks like the leading option is the NW runway at Heathrow, unsurprised they picked it since the plan is easily expandable to four runways.
Having two, two runway airports is useless, more flights to Malaga and Faro isn't going to help grow our exports. Gatwick need to give up or make their second runway option an addition to a third runway at Heathrow. The simple fact is that there is already spare capacity at Gatwick that airlines like China Eastern have given up because it is uneconomic to fly from there with half-empty planes.
Glad they ruled out Stansted, it's on the wrong side of London and it's also horrible. It would need far too much investment.
I think the timetable is too long also. A third runway should be the first bill to go through Parliament in June 2015 whichever party wins power and it should be ready to go by 2019 with the extra terminal building ready for 2023. We've already wasted 10 years (five under Labour, and five under the coalition) on not starting the process, we can't afford to waste another 10 years.
I'm in two minds about this. I'm concerned that whilst our Middle Eastern competitors are building international hubs with up to six runways, we will be trying to compete with just three.
Britain has a rather poor history of doing the absolute minimum of investment, witness the M25, rather than future proofing that investment. In the long run, it costs much more.
But if they've crunched the numbers and come up with that answer, fair enough. Although it sounds as though there are still three options on the table ...
Its the worst option - we need one big ferk off airport with 4 runways in the estuary. Close Heathrow and build houses on it.
Bonus will be ditching some of the dubious workplace practices entrenched at LHR.
On my pet subject of Heathrow. Sense has prevailed. It looks like the leading option is the NW runway at Heathrow, unsurprised they picked it since the plan is easily expandable to four runways.
Having two, two runway airports is useless, more flights to Malaga and Faro isn't going to help grow our exports. Gatwick need to give up or make their second runway option an addition to a third runway at Heathrow. The simple fact is that there is already spare capacity at Gatwick that airlines like China Eastern have given up because it is uneconomic to fly from there with half-empty planes.
Glad they ruled out Stansted, it's on the wrong side of London and it's also horrible. It would need far too much investment.
I think the timetable is too long also. A third runway should be the first bill to go through Parliament in June 2015 whichever party wins power and it should be ready to go by 2019 with the extra terminal building ready for 2023. We've already wasted 10 years (five under Labour, and five under the coalition) on not starting the process, we can't afford to waste another 10 years.
I'm in two minds about this. I'm concerned that whilst our Middle Eastern competitors are building international hubs with up to six runways, we will be trying to compete with just three.
Britain has a rather poor history of doing the absolute minimum of investment, witness the M25, rather than future proofing that investment. In the long run, it costs much more.
But if they've crunched the numbers and come up with that answer, fair enough. Although it sounds as though there are still three options on the table ...
Just wonder what all those people (or at least those who are still alive) who, in the 70's campaigned against the use of Foulness Island think now! I lived around there then and there was lot of feeling against. Personally I seem to recall being agnostic about the whole idea. It seemed very attractive, but there were serious environmental issues.
After the good German confidence number earlier this morning, is an absolutely stellar UK one. Factory orders in the UK are at an 18 year high! From the FT: "A survey of nearly 400 companies undertaken by the Confederation of British Industry for December came in at its best level since February 1995, reading showing an order book balance of +12."
Early indicators of retail sales not so good though Robert. The British Retail Consortion have reported "footfall" down on the high street and in shopping centres in November.
Factory orders up and Christmas shopping down will of course please our Warwickshire and Lincolnshire malcontents, but Q4 GDP growth is very closely linked to an upturn in the purchase of such fripperies as Food & Non-Alcoholic Beverages, Bread, Meat, Sweets, Alcoholic Drinks & Tobacco, Beer, Wine and Spirits.
How reliable are High Street figures as an indication of Christmas spend. If the experience of those I know is anthing to go by (and I appreciate that this is entirly anecdoal), the online market is absolutely booming.
The link between footfall and spend is notoriously erratic. A key example would be the impact of the Olympic Games on central London shopping. The West End was reported to be empty but the tills in Bond Street were ringing up large totals.
Anecdotal and personal experience tends to suggest that we tend to buy more faster when shopping alone rather than herding a family into coffee bars and Santa's grottoes to keep them quiet.
Also the BRC tends to be more pessimistic than other forecasters (a narrower focus on the high street and shopping mall perhaps). For example, the Visa Expenditure Index for November was far more upbeat than the BRC on November's figures.
Also the differing sampling periods used by the various publisher of spending tats often lead to discrepancies.: the Visa Index is often at odds with the ONS Retail Sales bulletin but the differences tend to get ironed out over a three month period.
Christmas Day falling in midweek may see a late rush of shopping this year.
So, all in all, wouldn't like to bet on any outcome in this area.
Online spend is of course rising faster than sales from brick and mortar stores but it is still less than 20% of total.
What amazes is the proportion of total annual retail spend which falls in Q4 (Calendar) and the extent to which the economy is dependent on such spend.
but you can't actually get to it by following the link.
so 3.84 it is as the best 10 year fix.
Repayment, yes. At these rates one can pay debt down quite aggressively.
Re cash, no, don't really have any. I have annual lump sum bonuses, but these are not life changing and all they do is pay school fees. Likewise chunks of share options mature every year, but these again are not life changing at the rate they come in at.
I find that mortgage sum a bit eyewatering too, although when I took it on, I was told I could have £673k if I wanted! I just see it as inflation. Just the new kitchen in this house cost twice what my first house cost me.
YouGov @YouGov 7s Supporters of government cuts now outnumber opponents for the first time in three years - http://y-g.co/18wpRqF
the tide is turning...
Despite the best efforts of Polly Toynbee (FPT - her latest Guardian article) to portray the Government (well, specifically the blue part of it) as supporters of eugenics, and probably eaters of babies as well.
Toynbee has become nothing more than a national laughing stock simply because she is so over the top. Nobody with a brain pays any attention to her and she has no effect on general political decourse.
You mean a bit like SeanT but without a sense of humour
Except that SeanT doesn't take himself seriously...
I love the way he gets all grumpy when he loses an argument
After the good German confidence number earlier this morning, is an absolutely stellar UK one. Factory orders in the UK are at an 18 year high! From the FT: "A survey of nearly 400 companies undertaken by the Confederation of British Industry for December came in at its best level since February 1995, reading showing an order book balance of +12."
Early indicators of retail sales not so good though Robert. The British Retail Consortion have reported "footfall" down on the high street and in shopping centres in November.
Factory orders up and Christmas shopping down will of course please our Warwickshire and Lincolnshire malcontents, but Q4 GDP growth is very closely linked to an upturn in the purchase of such fripperies as Food & Non-Alcoholic Beverages, Bread, Meat, Sweets, Alcoholic Drinks & Tobacco, Beer, Wine and Spirits.
How reliable are HighStreet figures as an indication of Christmas spend. If the experience of those I know is anthing to go by (and I appreciate that this is entirly anecdoal), the online market is absolutely booming.
More on the anecdote side of things - my mother went to London recently to do her Christmas shopping, but instead of going to Oxford Street, etc, she did a tour of the Museum shops: Natural History, V&A, Science, Tate, etc.
The growth of Christmas markets has been remarked upon recently, and is the sort of thing that could be missed by some of the survey data.
In any case, in general I think we can rely on British people spending money (even when they don't have it), unlike in some other countries, so economically we should pay more attention to earning money. The Trade figures have been one of the biggest disappointments of this Parliament so far, and one hopes that matching figures back in the mid-90s presages an improvement in the balance of trade that was last seen that long ago.
YouGov @YouGov 7s Supporters of government cuts now outnumber opponents for the first time in three years - http://y-g.co/18wpRqF
the tide is turning...
Despite the best efforts of Polly Toynbee (FPT - her latest Guardian article) to portray the Government (well, specifically the blue part of it) as supporters of eugenics, and probably eaters of babies as well.
Toynbee has become nothing more than a national laughing stock simply because she is so over the top. Nobody with a brain pays any attention to her and she has no effect on general political decourse.
You mean a bit like SeanT but without a sense of humour
Except that SeanT doesn't take himself seriously...
I love the way he gets all grumpy when he loses an argument
When his bone is taken away, he behaves like a Labrador puppy imitating a Rottweiler.
After the good German confidence number earlier this morning, is an absolutely stellar UK one. Factory orders in the UK are at an 18 year high! From the FT: "A survey of nearly 400 companies undertaken by the Confederation of British Industry for December came in at its best level since February 1995, reading showing an order book balance of +12."
Early indicators of retail sales not so good though Robert. The British Retail Consortion have reported "footfall" down on the high street and in shopping centres in November.
Factory orders up and Christmas shopping down will of course please our Warwickshire and Lincolnshire malcontents, but Q4 GDP growth is very closely linked to an upturn in the purchase of such fripperies as Food & Non-Alcoholic Beverages, Bread, Meat, Sweets, Alcoholic Drinks & Tobacco, Beer, Wine and Spirits.
How reliable are HighStreet figures as an indication of Christmas spend. If the experience of those I know is anthing to go by (and I appreciate that this is entirly anecdoal), the online market is absolutely booming.
More on the anecdote side of things - my mother went to London recently to do her Christmas shopping, but instead of going to Oxford Street, etc, she did a tour of the Museum shops: Natural History, V&A, Science, Tate, etc.
The growth of Christmas markets has been remarked upon recently, and is the sort of thing that could be missed by some of the survey data.
In any case, in general I think we can rely on British people spending money (even when they don't have it), unlike in some other countries, so economically we should pay more attention to earning money. The Trade figures have been one of the biggest disappointments of this Parliament so far, and one hopes that matching figures back in the mid-90s presages an improvement in the balance of trade that was last seen that long ago.
The factory orders data out today showed a welcome improvement in export demand.
Its the worst option - we need one big ferk off airport with 4 runways in the estuary. Close Heathrow and build houses on it.
Bonus will be ditching some of the dubious workplace practices entrenched at LHR.
If you can find the £60bn subsidy for it vs £5bn for the NW runway then I'm all in favour. The £60bn figure is also very optimistic as it assumes £50bn of investment in the private sector. I don't see it happening tbh.
If Heathrow were given the go ahead for both runways in the NW plan, it would cost £25bn total with just £10bn public subsidy. A four runway airport on the correct side of London with a public outlay of just £10bn vs Boris Island for a minimum of £60bn.
I too, would prefer BI in an ideal situation. It's not on the table though, far too costly.
But one thing we should remember, the marginal polling in the last parliament turned out to be as accurate as an American war movie.
Incorrect. The final Ipsos-MORI marginals poll two days beforehand reported a LAB>CON swing of 5.5% amongst all those expressing a preference - which was almost spot on.
Only problem was that the firm just focused on the certain to vote figures which had 7% swing.
In the marginals ignore voter certainty responses. The party machines will get out even the most marginal voter.
On my pet subject of Heathrow. Sense has prevailed. It looks like the leading option is the NW runway at Heathrow, unsurprised they picked it since the plan is easily expandable to four runways.
Having two, two runway airports is useless, more flights to Malaga and Faro isn't going to help grow our exports. Gatwick need to give up or make their second runway option an addition to a third runway at Heathrow. The simple fact is that there is already spare capacity at Gatwick that airlines like China Eastern have given up because it is uneconomic to fly from there with half-empty planes.
Glad they ruled out Stansted, it's on the wrong side of London and it's also horrible. It would need far too much investment.
I think the timetable is too long also. A third runway should be the first bill to go through Parliament in June 2015 whichever party wins power and it should be ready to go by 2019 with the extra terminal building ready for 2023. We've already wasted 10 years (five under Labour, and five under the coalition) on not starting the process, we can't afford to waste another 10 years.
I'm in two minds about this. I'm concerned that whilst our Middle Eastern competitors are building international hubs with up to six runways, we will be trying to compete with just three.
Britain has a rather poor history of doing the absolute minimum of investment, witness the M25, rather than future proofing that investment. In the long run, it costs much more.
But if they've crunched the numbers and come up with that answer, fair enough. Although it sounds as though there are still three options on the table ...
Just wonder what all those people (or at least those who are still alive) who, in the 70's campaigned against the use of Foulness Island think now! I lived around there then and there was lot of feeling against. Personally I seem to recall being agnostic about the whole idea. It seemed very attractive, but there were serious environmental issues.
Its the worst option - we need one big ferk off airport with 4 runways in the estuary. Close Heathrow and build houses on it.
Bonus will be ditching some of the dubious workplace practices entrenched at LHR.
If you can find the £60bn subsidy for it vs £5bn for the NW runway then I'm all in favour. The £60bn figure is also very optimistic as it assumes £50bn of investment in the private sector. I don't see it happening tbh.
If Heathrow were given the go ahead for both runways in the NW plan, it would cost £25bn total with just £10bn public subsidy. A four runway airport on the correct side of London with a public outlay of just £10bn vs Boris Island for a minimum of £60bn.
I too, would prefer BI in an ideal situation. It's not on the table though, far too costly.
HK build such an airport. Schipol is such an airport.
A 3 runway LHR is like a Lada with a spoiler on the back.
YouGov @YouGov 7s Supporters of government cuts now outnumber opponents for the first time in three years - http://y-g.co/18wpRqF
the tide is turning...
Despite the best efforts of Polly Toynbee (FPT - her latest Guardian article) to portray the Government (well, specifically the blue part of it) as supporters of eugenics, and probably eaters of babies as well.
Toynbee has become nothing more than a national laughing stock simply because she is so over the top. Nobody with a brain pays any attention to her and she has no effect on general political decourse.
You mean a bit like SeanT but without a sense of humour
Except that SeanT doesn't take himself seriously...
I love the way he gets all grumpy when he loses an argument
When his bone is taken away, he behaves like a Labrador puppy imitating a Rottweiler.
On second thoughts, when tim was taken away, Sean behaved more like a Rottweiler pretending to be a Labrador puppy.
The office for national statistics (ONS) has announced today that Network Rail is being reclassified as a Central Government entity for statistical purposes so that its 30bn debt goes on the government balance sheet.
This is as a result of the adoption of new european statistical standards. This will apply from 1 September 2014, but effective from April 2004.
So AveryLP favourite debt figure will be adversely affected next year, but as the comparative numbers will change, the year on year impact will only be the large increases in NR debt.
But one thing we should remember, the marginal polling in the last parliament turned out to be as accurate as an American war movie.
Incorrect. The final Ipsos-MORI marginals poll two days beforehand reported a LAB>CON swing of 5.5% amongst all those expressing a preference - which was almost spot on.
Only problem was that the firm just focused on the certain to vote figures which had 7% swing.
In the marginals ignore voter certainty responses. The party machines will get out even the most marginal voter.
Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was thinking of the marginal polls conducted at this stage in the parliament.
Tories set for 146 seat majority according to a 34k sample sized marginals poll in September 2008
The office for national statistics (ONS) has announced today that Network Rail is being reclassified as a Central Government entity for statistical purposes so that its 30bn debt goes on the government balance sheet.
This is as a result of the adoption of new european statistical standards. This will apply from 1 September 2014, but effective from April 2004.
So AveryLP favourite debt figure will be adversely affected next year, but as the comparative numbers will change, the year on year impact will only be the large increases in NR debt.
The statisticians are always doing their damnest to obscure St. George's achievements.
It is the reason the worship of his sanctity can only ever appeal to a narrow cult.
"Turnover for the year amounted to £665.8m, an increase of £20m, leaving a profit before tax and service payments to the Department for Transport of £195.7m, an increase of £13m.
"Passenger journeys at East Coast, which runs trains from London to the North East, Yorkshire and Scotland, increased by 2.1%, while customer satisfaction rose by 2%, and the latest punctuality figures were its best since records began in 1999."
It's a pretty small sample size. Are they taking into account the loss of the franchise money into account?
Looking at the big picture, passenger numbers have grown massively since privatisation after having been falling for years beforehand.
And so they should have bloody well done, given the vast increase in the subsidy!
Richard's contention was specifically about East Coast since it was renationalised. His contention was provably wrong.
Hmmm, again you link subsidy and passenger growth. In the last thread, you said subsidy had doubled, and so had passenger numbers. If those two facts are true, then the privatised industry is just as efficient wrt subsidy as BR was.
Which is rather a problem for your argument.
You also have to be careful about the figures. Several different things have to be factored in: for instance, one-off infrastructure costs to expand the network such as the WCML upgrade or Crossrail, and the day-to-day running and maintenance costs.
When you discuss EC's headline return to taxpayers, I'm surprised you do not acknowledge the role the Open Access operators have on that route, or the fact that South West Trains returned even more.
If the railways were renationalised, would you move National Rail's debt back onto the government's books?
Where is the rail debt at the moment ?
If you mean Network Rail, then it's vast, and getting vaster. About £20 billion today, it is believed to increase up to £50 billion by 2020. This is unsustainable.
Gordon Brown set NR up so that although the government guarantees any loans NR takes out, the debt does not go onto the government's books. This is a crazy situation that may lead to fiscal disaster.
The renationalisation advocates seem rather silent about this elephant in the room. But then again, so is this government ...
Whose book is the debt on then ? At the moment, I mean.
It is on (I believe) Network Rail's books. But it should not be: as the government underwrite the debt, it should really be on ours. But that underwritten debt just disappears into a black hole, as I understand it. Out of sight, out of mind.
It is a massive liability that governments can ignore, despite potentially having to repay it. And it probably will need to be repaid by the government: even with the most optimistic passenger growth forecasts, NR will not be able to pay it all back.
This sort of chicanery allowed Brown to meet various targets. It was also utterly wrong, and yet another worrying indication of what renationalisation might mean in practice.
But one thing we should remember, the marginal polling in the last parliament turned out to be as accurate as an American war movie.
Incorrect. The final Ipsos-MORI marginals poll two days beforehand reported a LAB>CON swing of 5.5% amongst all those expressing a preference - which was almost spot on.
Only problem was that the firm just focused on the certain to vote figures which had 7% swing.
In the marginals ignore voter certainty responses. The party machines will get out even the most marginal voter.
The optimal line being "final IPSOS-MORI marginals poll two days beforehand ...."
The office for national statistics (ONS) has announced today that Network Rail is being reclassified as a Central Government entity for statistical purposes so that its 30bn debt goes on the government balance sheet.
This is as a result of the adoption of new european statistical standards. This will apply from 1 September 2014, but effective from April 2004.
So AveryLP favourite debt figure will be adversely affected next year, but as the comparative numbers will change, the year on year impact will only be the large increases in NR debt.
Ah, thanks! I hadn't heard about that.
It'll be painful for Osborne, but it'll be another part of Brown's mess cleared up.
Sadly, it may potentially throw parts of the government's upgrade program into the long grass ...
HK build such an airport. Schipol is such an airport.
A 3 runway LHR is like a Lada with a spoiler on the back.
HK was a smaller project. Schiphol was a partially reclaimed lake, not an estuary, and the Dutch have been reclaiming land onshore for a very long time, they are much better at it than we are.
That's why the report has seemingly picked the only serious 4 runway option as the favoured outcome. Only the NW LHR option can be easily expanded to four runways.
Its the worst option - we need one big ferk off airport with 4 runways in the estuary. Close Heathrow and build houses on it.
Bonus will be ditching some of the dubious workplace practices entrenched at LHR.
If you can find the £60bn subsidy for it vs £5bn for the NW runway then I'm all in favour. The £60bn figure is also very optimistic as it assumes £50bn of investment in the private sector. I don't see it happening tbh.
If Heathrow were given the go ahead for both runways in the NW plan, it would cost £25bn total with just £10bn public subsidy. A four runway airport on the correct side of London with a public outlay of just £10bn vs Boris Island for a minimum of £60bn.
I too, would prefer BI in an ideal situation. It's not on the table though, far too costly.
I doubt the final cost will be anything near as low as £5 billion for HWR3, especially as terminal 5 cost £4.2 billion! In addition, haven't they already said they'll need public funding?
I also doubt some of the claims they make to allow them to make more capacity on their existing infrastructure - for instance (from memory) the assumption that quieter flights will allow longer operating hours. The locals might not like that ...
The office for national statistics (ONS) has announced today that Network Rail is being reclassified as a Central Government entity for statistical purposes so that its 30bn debt goes on the government balance sheet.
This is as a result of the adoption of new european statistical standards. This will apply from 1 September 2014, but effective from April 2004.
So AveryLP favourite debt figure will be adversely affected next year, but as the comparative numbers will change, the year on year impact will only be the large increases in NR debt.
The statisticians are always doing their damnest to obscure St. George's achievements.
It is the reason the worship of his sanctity can only ever appeal to a narrow cult.
You put in an "l" instead of an "n" in that last word ;-)
It'll be painful for Osborne, but it'll be another part of Brown's mess cleared up.
Sadly, it may potentially throw parts of the government's upgrade program into the long grass ...
It should not affect the CP5 regulatory settlement, nor in the short term ORR's responsibilities. However it will mean that NR will become accountable to parliament for the first time.
In the long term it will be odd having an independent regulator interposing between separate bits of Government.
But one thing we should remember, the marginal polling in the last parliament turned out to be as accurate as an American war movie.
Incorrect. The final Ipsos-MORI marginals poll two days beforehand reported a LAB>CON swing of 5.5% amongst all those expressing a preference - which was almost spot on.
Only problem was that the firm just focused on the certain to vote figures which had 7% swing.
In the marginals ignore voter certainty responses. The party machines will get out even the most marginal voter.
Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was thinking of the marginal polls conducted at this stage in the parliament.
Tories set for 146 seat majority according to a 34k sample sized marginals poll in September 2008
For 34 people it seems good value for money. Unionists just love to hate Alex, I assuem they are busy chasing Dave to ask how much he spent on his trips to China or Afghanistan , etc etc
The elephant in the room is there whether the railways are renationalised or not. Whether the debt is on NR or the Gov'ts book is immaterial, unless it can find someone to buy the debt back on better terms than it can service it itself (RBS/Lloyds should be being sold off by now I'd have thought). I'd suggest the hope of that is the square root of Crystal Palace's chances of qualifying for Europe.
For 34 people it seems good value for money. Unionists just love to hate Alex, I assuem they are busy chasing Dave to ask how much he spent on his trips to China or Afghanistan , etc etc
Total bollocks as ever
I guess £500K for a trip for 34 people is trivial, when you can simply tap the long suffering English for a top up.
I doubt the final cost will be anything near as low as £5 billion for HWR3, especially as terminal 5 cost £4.2 billion! In addition, haven't they already said they'll need public funding?
I also doubt some of the claims they make to allow them to make more capacity on their existing infrastructure - for instance (from memory) the assumption that quieter flights will allow longer operating hours. The locals might not like that ...
The cost is £17bn with £5bn public subsidy, some of it in loan guarantees.
I think getting the older 747s out of service over the next few years will help a lot with noise.
But one thing we should remember, the marginal polling in the last parliament turned out to be as accurate as an American war movie.
Incorrect. The final Ipsos-MORI marginals poll two days beforehand reported a LAB>CON swing of 5.5% amongst all those expressing a preference - which was almost spot on.
Only problem was that the firm just focused on the certain to vote figures which had 7% swing.
In the marginals ignore voter certainty responses. The party machines will get out even the most marginal voter.
Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was thinking of the marginal polls conducted at this stage in the parliament.
Tories set for 146 seat majority according to a 34k sample sized marginals poll in September 2008
HK build such an airport. Schipol is such an airport.
A 3 runway LHR is like a Lada with a spoiler on the back.
HK was a smaller project. Schiphol was a partially reclaimed lake, not an estuary, and the Dutch have been reclaiming land onshore for a very long time, they are much better at it than we are.
That's why the report has seemingly picked the only serious 4 runway option as the favoured outcome. Only the NW LHR option can be easily expanded to four runways.
I call BS on the skills comment: HK airport was built by British engineering firms - I remember going to a talk at the Institute of Civil Engineers about the cables used on the Tsing Ma Bridge. (*)
We have got plenty of skills with such civil engineering. There's a rather large project on the other side of the Thames involving vast amounts of dredging which shows we can do it right now.
I am really concerned that any expansion of HR will be out of date before it is completed. Your comment about a fourth runway is indicative. Then again, I'm not an aviation expert, and have to rely on the Davies commission doing a thorough job at peering into the murky crystal ball of capacity ...
(*) Yes, I am sad enough to admit it was fascinating. It was also the meeting that convinced me not to have a career in civil engineering ...
I find it curious that the government is expending any time and energy whatsoever on the question of switching off analogue radio signals by 2015, which is almost completely irrelevant to most people, when they could and should IMO be concentrating on, for instance, speeding up the rollout of super-fast broadband, which is very relevant and important to most people. The telephone exchange in my area, for example, was last updated in 1973 I believe.
I upgraded to fibreoptic last week, enticed by a BT offer to charge nothing extra for 12 months. Downloaded a game in no time, but for everyday stuff that already worked without delay (email, iplayer, music videos, etc.) it makes no difference whatever, as expected. Seems mainly useful if you do heavy-duty things like downloading movies?
Its the worst option - we need one big ferk off airport with 4 runways in the estuary. Close Heathrow and build houses on it.
Bonus will be ditching some of the dubious workplace practices entrenched at LHR.
If you can find the £60bn subsidy for it vs £5bn for the NW runway then I'm all in favour. The £60bn figure is also very optimistic as it assumes £50bn of investment in the private sector. I don't see it happening tbh.
If Heathrow were given the go ahead for both runways in the NW plan, it would cost £25bn total with just £10bn public subsidy. A four runway airport on the correct side of London with a public outlay of just £10bn vs Boris Island for a minimum of £60bn.
I too, would prefer BI in an ideal situation. It's not on the table though, far too costly.
I doubt the final cost will be anything near as low as £5 billion for HWR3, especially as terminal 5 cost £4.2 billion! In addition, haven't they already said they'll need public funding?
I also doubt some of the claims they make to allow them to make more capacity on their existing infrastructure - for instance (from memory) the assumption that quieter flights will allow longer operating hours. The locals might not like that ...
'In addition, haven't they already said they'll need public funding?'
Ever more ridiculous. Ferrovial and their co investors should go to the markets for funding, not the taxpayer.
The best description of Heathrow is a shopping centre with a couple of runways.
'We all know where Lord Ashcroft stands politically but that does not stand in the way of his search for as accurate a picture.'
Except when he strays across the border.
Ashcroft Headline: Most Scots back nuclear deterrent.
Actual poll: Question – In principle, do you support or oppose the United Kingdom having nuclear weapons?
37 per cent of respondents said they supported 48 per cent said they opposed 15 per cent said they didn’t know
His recent independence poll (cobbled together from 3 different polls taken over 6 months) was also the most useless contribution to the debate until Carmichael got on to his hind legs.
Yeah but the SNP never quote his polls in press releases do they?
or do they, when the polling is favourable to them?
For 34 people it seems good value for money. Unionists just love to hate Alex, I assuem they are busy chasing Dave to ask how much he spent on his trips to China or Afghanistan , etc etc
Total bollocks as ever
I guess £500K for a trip for 34 people is trivial, when you can simply tap the long suffering English for a top up.
Given we have subsidised you for the last 30 years that is a bit rich.
For 34 people it seems good value for money. Unionists just love to hate Alex, I assuem they are busy chasing Dave to ask how much he spent on his trips to China or Afghanistan , etc etc
Total bollocks as ever
I guess £500K for a trip for 34 people is trivial, when you can simply tap the long suffering English for a top up.
Given we have subsidised you for the last 30 years that is a bit rich.
Sending tinned shortbread south, does not a subsidy make.
For 34 people it seems good value for money. Unionists just love to hate Alex, I assuem they are busy chasing Dave to ask how much he spent on his trips to China or Afghanistan , etc etc
Total bollocks as ever
Malcolm
On the contrary. Dave is so intent on saving taxpayers money he will go to any length to save costs.
For example, on his recent trip to Afghanistan he agreed to share a flight bunkbed with Michael Owen.
The elephant in the room is there whether the railways are renationalised or not. Whether the debt is on NR or the Gov'ts book is immaterial, unless it can find someone to buy the debt back on better terms than it can service it itself (RBS/Lloyds should be being sold off by now I'd have thought). I'd suggest the hope of that is the square root of Crystal Palace's chances of qualifying for Europe.
IANAE, but I think the debt's location did matter for the following reason:
1) The existing debt was not on the government's books. 2) NR comes up with various costly plans for upgrades. 3) NR need money to pay for those upgrades. They get cheap loans because the government underwrites them. 4) The government shrugs and says it is fine to spend the money, as it does not effect Brown's ego borrowing figures. 5) The debt grows and everyone puts their fingers in their ears and goes la-la-la.
Basically, increased investment is a vote winner, whilst debt figures make the government look bad. So having it off the books was a lie, but advantaged everyone.
In the future, the government will have to think very carefully about whether they are getting bang for their buck. I'm not sure that was done rigorously enough under the old regime.
I daresay someone will correct me if this is wrong ...
I find it curious that the government is expending any time and energy whatsoever on the question of switching off analogue radio signals by 2015, which is almost completely irrelevant to most people, when they could and should IMO be concentrating on, for instance, speeding up the rollout of super-fast broadband, which is very relevant and important to most people. The telephone exchange in my area, for example, was last updated in 1973 I believe.
I upgraded to fibreoptic last week, enticed by a BT offer to charge nothing extra for 12 months. Downloaded a game in no time, but for everyday stuff that already worked without delay (email, iplayer, music videos, etc.) it makes no difference whatever, as expected. Seems mainly useful if you do heavy-duty things like downloading movies?
My phone just recorded 27.87 Meg down and 2.95 Meg up. But the ping was a shoddy 48-60. Great for downloading, and streaming - bad for anything that requires low latency (Typically gaming)
Whereas this PC recorded 2 Meg down, 0.25 Meg with a ping of 22, that'd be piss poor for streaming vids and downloading but good for gaming.
The elephant in the room is there whether the railways are renationalised or not. Whether the debt is on NR or the Gov'ts book is immaterial, unless it can find someone to buy the debt back on better terms than it can service it itself (RBS/Lloyds should be being sold off by now I'd have thought). I'd suggest the hope of that is the square root of Crystal Palace's chances of qualifying for Europe.
I daresay someone will correct me if this is wrong ...
I daresay, someone will correct you even if you are right. : )
I live 18 miles from one of the biggest cities in the UK but there's still no fixed date for when fibre optic broadband might be available. Not good enough. In Taiwan you can get it in the most remote of places, such as half way up a mountain.
I find it curious that the government is expending any time and energy whatsoever on the question of switching off analogue radio signals by 2015, which is almost completely irrelevant to most people, when they could and should IMO be concentrating on, for instance, speeding up the rollout of super-fast broadband, which is very relevant and important to most people. The telephone exchange in my area, for example, was last updated in 1973 I believe.
I upgraded to fibreoptic last week, enticed by a BT offer to charge nothing extra for 12 months. Downloaded a game in no time, but for everyday stuff that already worked without delay (email, iplayer, music videos, etc.) it makes no difference whatever, as expected. Seems mainly useful if you do heavy-duty things like downloading movies?
My phone just recorded 27.87 Meg down and 2.95 Meg up. But the ping was a shoddy 48-60. Great for downloading, and streaming - bad for anything that requires low latency (Typically gaming)
Whereas this PC recorded 2 Meg down, 0.25 Meg with a ping of 22, that'd be piss poor for streaming vids and downloading but good for gaming.
This is reminding me of the debate I had with Neil where he said that Defined Contribution pension schemes are unaffordable in the public sector. I asked him what asset plan public sector DB pension schemes were backed up with
- Just because you paper over a hole with some tissue paper doesn't mean the hole isn't there...
@JosiasJessop I am sure your analysis is correct. Scarily.
For 34 people it seems good value for money. Unionists just love to hate Alex, I assuem they are busy chasing Dave to ask how much he spent on his trips to China or Afghanistan , etc etc
Total bollocks as ever
Problem aint the total - it's the unaccounted for funds - why wont they reveal what the money was "invested" on ?
And why did Eck have to stay at a plusher hotel farther away with his old lady ?
A part-time judge has been charged with an additional count of perverting the course of public justice in connection with the Chris Huhne speeding case.
Constance Briscoe pleaded not guilty at the Old Bailey on Tuesday.
She is accused of providing police with two inaccurate statements and altering a copy of a police witness statement.
The debt grows and everyone puts their fingers in their ears and goes la-la-la.
Sounds GREAT !
So GREAT! you said it twice. ;-)
My position on this is rather dubious. I welcome the upgrade plans (CP5 for 2014 to 2019) where they will spend £37.5 billion over five years, or HS2, in the order of 30-40 billion over twenty years. Yet I worry about the resultant debt.
My position on this is probably the same as most voters' on the economy: we love it when money is spent on us, and are happy to put the debt worries to the back of our mind, to be dealt with in the future ...
Can I just say, one of the Defence barristers in the trial of the murder of Lee Rigby deserves an award for his use of English (but I suspect a load of abuse on twitter and from the media)
Comments
You are thinking of the recently published Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. However that is year ending April 2013 only
"In April 2013 median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees were £517, up 2.2% from £506 in 2012."
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2013-provisional-results/stb-ashe-statistical-bulletin-2013.html
Having two, two runway airports is useless, more flights to Malaga and Faro isn't going to help grow our exports. Gatwick need to give up or make their second runway option an addition to a third runway at Heathrow. The simple fact is that there is already spare capacity at Gatwick that airlines like China Eastern have given up because it is uneconomic to fly from there with half-empty planes.
Glad they ruled out Stansted, it's on the wrong side of London and it's also horrible. It would need far too much investment.
I think the timetable is too long also. A third runway should be the first bill to go through Parliament in June 2015 whichever party wins power and it should be ready to go by 2019 with the extra terminal building ready for 2023. We've already wasted 10 years (five under Labour, and five under the coalition) on not starting the process, we can't afford to waste another 10 years.
https://www.gov.uk/broadband-delivery-uk
But one thing we should remember, the marginal polling in the last parliament turned out to be as accurate as an American war movie.
or do they, when the polling is favourable to them?
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/mar/snp-vote-climbs-lib-dems-face-mainland-wipeout
Gordon Brown set NR up so that although the government guarantees any loans NR takes out, the debt does not go onto the government's books. This is a crazy situation that may lead to fiscal disaster.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/15/network-rail-debts-watchdog
The renationalisation advocates seem rather silent about this elephant in the room. But then again, so is this government ...
Britain has a rather poor history of doing the absolute minimum of investment, witness the M25, rather than future proofing that investment. In the long run, it costs much more.
But if they've crunched the numbers and come up with that answer, fair enough. Although it sounds as though there are still three options on the table ...
(I have no restrictions on portability of my mortgage from RBS. And they gave me such a silly rate I have no incentive to pay it back - 1.14% over base for life)
Bonus will be ditching some of the dubious workplace practices entrenched at LHR.
I lived around there then and there was lot of feeling against. Personally I seem to recall being agnostic about the whole idea. It seemed very attractive, but there were serious environmental issues.
Anecdotal and personal experience tends to suggest that we tend to buy more faster when shopping alone rather than herding a family into coffee bars and Santa's grottoes to keep them quiet.
Also the BRC tends to be more pessimistic than other forecasters (a narrower focus on the high street and shopping mall perhaps). For example, the Visa Expenditure Index for November was far more upbeat than the BRC on November's figures.
Also the differing sampling periods used by the various publisher of spending tats often lead to discrepancies.: the Visa Index is often at odds with the ONS Retail Sales bulletin but the differences tend to get ironed out over a three month period.
Christmas Day falling in midweek may see a late rush of shopping this year.
So, all in all, wouldn't like to bet on any outcome in this area.
Online spend is of course rising faster than sales from brick and mortar stores but it is still less than 20% of total.
What amazes is the proportion of total annual retail spend which falls in Q4 (Calendar) and the extent to which the economy is dependent on such spend.
It appears the 3.44 may be a mirage - there was a Chelsea rate of that back in November which still comes up if you tweak this search page
http://www.moneysupermarket.com/mortgages/search/results/?msmsearch=true<v=47.6&goal=MOR_REM
but you can't actually get to it by following the link.
so 3.84 it is as the best 10 year fix.
Repayment, yes. At these rates one can pay debt down quite aggressively.
Re cash, no, don't really have any. I have annual lump sum bonuses, but these are not life changing and all they do is pay school fees. Likewise chunks of share options mature every year, but these again are not life changing at the rate they come in at.
I find that mortgage sum a bit eyewatering too, although when I took it on, I was told I could have £673k if I wanted! I just see it as inflation. Just the new kitchen in this house cost twice what my first house cost me.
The growth of Christmas markets has been remarked upon recently, and is the sort of thing that could be missed by some of the survey data.
In any case, in general I think we can rely on British people spending money (even when they don't have it), unlike in some other countries, so economically we should pay more attention to earning money. The Trade figures have been one of the biggest disappointments of this Parliament so far, and one hopes that matching figures back in the mid-90s presages an improvement in the balance of trade that was last seen that long ago.
If Heathrow were given the go ahead for both runways in the NW plan, it would cost £25bn total with just £10bn public subsidy. A four runway airport on the correct side of London with a public outlay of just £10bn vs Boris Island for a minimum of £60bn.
I too, would prefer BI in an ideal situation. It's not on the table though, far too costly.
Only problem was that the firm just focused on the certain to vote figures which had 7% swing.
In the marginals ignore voter certainty responses. The party machines will get out even the most marginal voter.
http://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/m13/
A 3 runway LHR is like a Lada with a spoiler on the back.
'I too, would prefer BI in an ideal situation. It's not on the table though, far too costly.'
What needs to be on the table is a London wide referendum to see if the residents of London want even more noise & disturbance.
This is as a result of the adoption of new european statistical standards. This will apply from 1 September 2014, but effective from April 2004.
So AveryLP favourite debt figure will be adversely affected next year, but as the comparative numbers will change, the year on year impact will only be the large increases in NR debt.
Tories set for 146 seat majority according to a 34k sample sized marginals poll in September 2008
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/09/20/tory-majority-of-146-according-to-34000-sample-poll/
It is the reason the worship of his sanctity can only ever appeal to a narrow cult.
It is a massive liability that governments can ignore, despite potentially having to repay it. And it probably will need to be repaid by the government: even with the most optimistic passenger growth forecasts, NR will not be able to pay it all back.
This sort of chicanery allowed Brown to meet various targets. It was also utterly wrong, and yet another worrying indication of what renationalisation might mean in practice.
It'll be painful for Osborne, but it'll be another part of Brown's mess cleared up.
Sadly, it may potentially throw parts of the government's upgrade program into the long grass ...
That's why the report has seemingly picked the only serious 4 runway option as the favoured outcome. Only the NW LHR option can be easily expanded to four runways.
True, but trade is described as booming or disastrous on the basis of a few percentage points fluctuation either way.
I also doubt some of the claims they make to allow them to make more capacity on their existing infrastructure - for instance (from memory) the assumption that quieter flights will allow longer operating hours. The locals might not like that ...
In the long term it will be odd having an independent regulator interposing between separate bits of Government.
Total bollocks as ever
The elephant in the room is there whether the railways are renationalised or not. Whether the debt is on NR or the Gov'ts book is immaterial, unless it can find someone to buy the debt back on better terms than it can service it itself (RBS/Lloyds should be being sold off by now I'd have thought). I'd suggest the hope of that is the square root of Crystal Palace's chances of qualifying for Europe.
I think getting the older 747s out of service over the next few years will help a lot with noise.
Con 52% (fifty-two)
Lab 24%
LD 12%
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2269
The ICM in September 2008 was Con 41, Lab 32, Lab 18
We have got plenty of skills with such civil engineering. There's a rather large project on the other side of the Thames involving vast amounts of dredging which shows we can do it right now.
I am really concerned that any expansion of HR will be out of date before it is completed. Your comment about a fourth runway is indicative. Then again, I'm not an aviation expert, and have to rely on the Davies commission doing a thorough job at peering into the murky crystal ball of capacity ...
(*) Yes, I am sad enough to admit it was fascinating. It was also the meeting that convinced me not to have a career in civil engineering ...
Ever more ridiculous. Ferrovial and their co investors should go to the markets for funding, not the taxpayer.
The best description of Heathrow is a shopping centre with a couple of runways.
That's going to put me in a bad mood for the rest of the day now ... grrrrr
On the contrary. Dave is so intent on saving taxpayers money he will go to any length to save costs.
For example, on his recent trip to Afghanistan he agreed to share a flight bunkbed with Michael Owen.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
1) The existing debt was not on the government's books.
2) NR comes up with various costly plans for upgrades.
3) NR need money to pay for those upgrades. They get cheap loans because the government underwrites them.
4) The government shrugs and says it is fine to spend the money, as it does not effect Brown's ego borrowing figures.
5) The debt grows and everyone puts their fingers in their ears and goes la-la-la.
Basically, increased investment is a vote winner, whilst debt figures make the government look bad. So having it off the books was a lie, but advantaged everyone.
In the future, the government will have to think very carefully about whether they are getting bang for their buck. I'm not sure that was done rigorously enough under the old regime.
I daresay someone will correct me if this is wrong ...
Whereas this PC recorded 2 Meg down, 0.25 Meg with a ping of 22, that'd be piss poor for streaming vids and downloading but good for gaming.
(Nearest server)
The Screaming Eagles @TSEofPB 9 Sep
I love my BT Infinity 2
pic.twitter.com/mLN8YwBEk3
My 4G speeds on my phone and iPad
The Screaming Eagles @TSEofPB 9 Sep
Then again I love 4g
pic.twitter.com/XlqScgdwih
- Just because you paper over a hole with some tissue paper doesn't mean the hole isn't there...
@JosiasJessop I am sure your analysis is correct. Scarily.
Then it was upgraded to BT infinity
And why did Eck have to stay at a plusher hotel farther away with his old lady ?
My plan doesn't allow for tethering ;( Are there any that do btw ?
A part-time judge has been charged with an additional count of perverting the course of public justice in connection with the Chris Huhne speeding case.
Constance Briscoe pleaded not guilty at the Old Bailey on Tuesday.
She is accused of providing police with two inaccurate statements and altering a copy of a police witness statement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25413710
EE 4G plans allow tethering, and a few Three plans also allow tethering.
My position on this is rather dubious. I welcome the upgrade plans (CP5 for 2014 to 2019) where they will spend £37.5 billion over five years, or HS2, in the order of 30-40 billion over twenty years. Yet I worry about the resultant debt.
My position on this is probably the same as most voters' on the economy: we love it when money is spent on us, and are happy to put the debt worries to the back of our mind, to be dealt with in the future ...
lucy manning @lucymanning 11s
Woolwich defence for Adebolajo called him "most law abiding terrorist in history" & said this wasnt most sadistic callous murder in history.