Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ministers are only just waking up to the Covid hangover

SystemSystem Posts: 11,682
edited August 2020 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ministers are only just waking up to the Covid hangover

Panic might be too strong a word but the urgency with which ministers and business leaders have called this week for people to return to working in offices and city centres suggests that they’re seriously concerned, and rightly so.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,951
    When change comes, it can come quickly, unexpectedly and brutally.

    David Cameron found that out.

    Theresa May found that out.

    Let's hope BoZo finds out, really soon.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,992
    Jonathan said:

    The old normal was rubbish. All the overpriced coffee and palliative consumerism couldn’t make up for the four hour commute or cattle truck air travel,

    Turns out working at home, being around my family and no longer needlessly adding co2 and landfill is a good thing. Why on Earth would I want to go back to the nonsense especially when I get more done?

    You obviously don't have young kids. Who'd rather hang out with a screaming toddler over reading a book on the tube?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,603
    The perfectly logical case for Donald Trump
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/28/perfectly-logical-case-donald-trump/
    To make America great again, again, you must vote for Donald Trump!
    If you think things are bad now under Donald Trump, vote for Donald Trump, who will fix things. The chaos will continue unless you vote for Donald Trump, who will bring needed change by serving another term as president.
    Any bad things happening now were sent by Joe Biden, from the future. Do not be fooled by the fact that they are happening in the present, when Donald Trump is president. They are not happening now; they are a preview of what will happen when Joe Biden is president.
    Joe Biden wants to destroy the suburbs; he wants, also, to put America’s great workers into houses and basements, where he will force unwanted government assistance on them. Joe Biden has controlled all of government for the past 47 years but, confusingly, he has never gotten through any of the radical policies he really wanted — until now, when he assuredly will. His first act will be to get rid of hamburgers and make cows illegal.
    Joe Biden is 40 feet tall, made of wood, hollow and filled with socialists. Joe Biden is also a puppet whose strings are pulled by China, and he would be a pushover to them, unlike Donald Trump, whom John Bolton remembered telling Chinese President Xi Jinping to “go ahead” building concentration camps for Uighurs because it was “exactly the right thing to do.” Joe Biden wants to defund the police, which is why he is advocating not defunding the police.
    Most of all, Joe Biden wants to destroy America’s greatness. (Greatness is what we have right now, under Donald Trump, but also don’t have yet, but will definitely have in the future.) Joe Biden will never create jobs, the way Donald Trump has, by first presiding over the loss of millions of them.
    Under Donald Trump, America has never been safer. It has also never been more dangerous. We must elect Donald Trump to make us safe again, which he has already made us, never more than we are now, although we also aren’t, and won’t be, unless we elect him! If you see....
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,603
    Jonathan said:

    The old normal was rubbish. All the overpriced coffee and palliative consumerism couldn’t make up for the four hour commute or cattle truck air travel,

    Turns out working at home, being around my family and no longer needlessly adding co2 and landfill is a good thing. Why on Earth would I want to go back to the nonsense especially when I get more done?

    Why indeed ?
    Change will happen, but however attractive for some of us, it’s going to have painful consequences for many others.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The old normal was rubbish. All the overpriced coffee and palliative consumerism couldn’t make up for the four hour commute or cattle truck air travel,

    Turns out working at home, being around my family and no longer needlessly adding co2 and landfill is a good thing. Why on Earth would I want to go back to the nonsense especially when I get more done?

    You obviously don't have young kids. Who'd rather hang out with a screaming toddler over reading a book on the tube?
    I have teenage boys that love fighting. I can go out for a walk round the block.

    Reading on the Victoria line was never a thing. Sardines can’t read.
  • Options
    StereodogStereodog Posts: 400
    edited August 2020
    I'm a model case for all of this. I live in a commuter town and travelled into London every day. I've loved working from home and will not be bullied into going back (with the support of my company). I'm £500 a month richer and I have two hours more leisure time. Instead of giving my lunch money to Pret it now goes to a lovely local sandwich shop.

    The Tories have spent years going on about not propping up failing nationalised industries. The government should put their money where their mouth is and let people remake the economy as they see fit.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.
  • Options
    state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,417
    Commuting whether by public transport or car can be tedious of course but I think long term it does get you out and seeing people (random people especially if using bus ,tube or train) and that, without realising it, keeps us human. Not sure stuck at home all week every week (even if you go out at 5 after the end of the working day) is great for long term mental health.
    Ultimately businesses and individuals will decide what works best though not government .However government should not be looking to put barriers in place of working in the office like face mask wearing (when no need) in either the work place or on public transport.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited August 2020

    Commuting whether by public transport or car can be tedious of course but I think long term it does get you out and seeing people (random people especially if using bus ,tube or train) and that, without realising it, keeps us human. Not sure stuck at home all week every week (even if you go out at 5 after the end of the working day) is great for long term mental health.
    Ultimately businesses and individuals will decide what works best though not government .However government should not be looking to put barriers in place of working in the office like face mask wearing (when no need) in either the work place or on public transport.

    Digital technology has revolutionised work and shopping. All the virus did was to accelerate an established trend. We are not going back.

    The genie is uncorked. The government is trying the equivalent of promoting horses and carts in the era of the motor car.

    Instead of trying to reinstate an analogue world it should be helping people transition.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Jonathan said:

    Commuting whether by public transport or car can be tedious of course but I think long term it does get you out and seeing people (random people especially if using bus ,tube or train) and that, without realising it, keeps us human. Not sure stuck at home all week every week (even if you go out at 5 after the end of the working day) is great for long term mental health.
    Ultimately businesses and individuals will decide what works best though not government .However government should not be looking to put barriers in place of working in the office like face mask wearing (when no need) in either the work place or on public transport.

    Digital technology has revolutionised work and shopping. All the virus did was to accelerate an established trend. We are not going back.

    The genie is uncorked. The government is trying the equivalent of promoting horses and carts in the era of the motor car.

    Instead of trying to reinstate an analogue world it should be helping people transition.
    None of that answers the point. Many (most?) people at school and university tend to got to a library to work even if they have adequate workspace in their rooms and don’t need the books in the library. There is a reason for this.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    Commuting whether by public transport or car can be tedious of course but I think long term it does get you out and seeing people (random people especially if using bus ,tube or train) and that, without realising it, keeps us human. Not sure stuck at home all week every week (even if you go out at 5 after the end of the working day) is great for long term mental health.
    Ultimately businesses and individuals will decide what works best though not government .However government should not be looking to put barriers in place of working in the office like face mask wearing (when no need) in either the work place or on public transport.

    Digital technology has revolutionised work and shopping. All the virus did was to accelerate an established trend. We are not going back.

    The genie is uncorked. The government is trying the equivalent of promoting horses and carts in the era of the motor car.

    Instead of trying to reinstate an analogue world it should be helping people transition.
    None of that answers the point. Many (most?) people at school and university tend to got to a library to work even if they have adequate workspace in their rooms and don’t need the books in the library. There is a reason for this.
    Poor accommodation.
  • Options
    state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,417
    edited August 2020
    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    Commuting whether by public transport or car can be tedious of course but I think long term it does get you out and seeing people (random people especially if using bus ,tube or train) and that, without realising it, keeps us human. Not sure stuck at home all week every week (even if you go out at 5 after the end of the working day) is great for long term mental health.
    Ultimately businesses and individuals will decide what works best though not government .However government should not be looking to put barriers in place of working in the office like face mask wearing (when no need) in either the work place or on public transport.

    Digital technology has revolutionised work and shopping. All the virus did was to accelerate an established trend. We are not going back.

    The genie is uncorked. The government is trying the equivalent of promoting horses and carts in the era of the motor car.

    Instead of trying to reinstate an analogue world it should be helping people transition.
    None of that answers the point. Many (most?) people at school and university tend to got to a library to work even if they have adequate workspace in their rooms and don’t need the books in the library. There is a reason for this.
    Poor accommodation.
    You make it sound like the default of everyone's ideal life is to stay in the domestic home all day and anything that encourages or forces that to change is something that is to be endured. I realise people have differing characteristics but personally I love the world around me and would find it very depressing to stay at home for huge sections of every day.I think most people like to get out and about
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    Commuting whether by public transport or car can be tedious of course but I think long term it does get you out and seeing people (random people especially if using bus ,tube or train) and that, without realising it, keeps us human. Not sure stuck at home all week every week (even if you go out at 5 after the end of the working day) is great for long term mental health.
    Ultimately businesses and individuals will decide what works best though not government .However government should not be looking to put barriers in place of working in the office like face mask wearing (when no need) in either the work place or on public transport.

    Digital technology has revolutionised work and shopping. All the virus did was to accelerate an established trend. We are not going back.

    The genie is uncorked. The government is trying the equivalent of promoting horses and carts in the era of the motor car.

    Instead of trying to reinstate an analogue world it should be helping people transition.
    None of that answers the point. Many (most?) people at school and university tend to got to a library to work even if they have adequate workspace in their rooms and don’t need the books in the library. There is a reason for this.
    Poor accommodation.
    In my case, in my final year, a well furnished set of rooms (separate bedroom) in a grade 1 listed building. Try again.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    Commuting whether by public transport or car can be tedious of course but I think long term it does get you out and seeing people (random people especially if using bus ,tube or train) and that, without realising it, keeps us human. Not sure stuck at home all week every week (even if you go out at 5 after the end of the working day) is great for long term mental health.
    Ultimately businesses and individuals will decide what works best though not government .However government should not be looking to put barriers in place of working in the office like face mask wearing (when no need) in either the work place or on public transport.

    Digital technology has revolutionised work and shopping. All the virus did was to accelerate an established trend. We are not going back.

    The genie is uncorked. The government is trying the equivalent of promoting horses and carts in the era of the motor car.

    Instead of trying to reinstate an analogue world it should be helping people transition.
    None of that answers the point. Many (most?) people at school and university tend to got to a library to work even if they have adequate workspace in their rooms and don’t need the books in the library. There is a reason for this.
    Poor accommodation.
    In my case, in my final year, a well furnished set of rooms (separate bedroom) in a grade 1 listed building. Try again.
    Lucky you, you’re in a minority I suggest. Sometimes it’s good to get out of the house. And do you know what, that’s still aloud. The wonderful thing is that you’re not obliged to commute for hours every day.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,629
    A good header from DH.

    Like many others I cannot WFH. I am spending a bit more time at home, as our undergraduate and postgraduate teaching is via Zoom or Teams, and works in that format. The effective abolition of private practice has given me a bit more time off too. Leicester city centre doesn't look a lot quieter than usual when I have been running errands, so the changes in London seem much less marked.

    I miss the pub after work, live church meetings and live football but all these will return.

  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,282
    edited August 2020
    The real impact of Brexit couldn't have come at a better time for the government to hide or deny it but not at a worse time for us to suffer it.

    It's a good lead and raises a serious issue - but is over-focused on the issue of commuting. My small town has zero reliance on commuting yet the retail sector is in the same difficulty and many shopkeepers are saying they can get to Xmas but may go under before next summer. The loss of the front end of the summer season, coupled with people's continuing reluctance to be out and about and the many who have now discovered easy and hassle-free online shopping, has critically hit footfall.
  • Options
    coachcoach Posts: 250
    edited August 2020
    It seems the majority of people are completely unaware of our economic situation, its not until the furlough ends and the weather changes that the reality will hit. Pubs and cafes with outdoor spaces are doing fine but that won't last, the Rishi scheme helped but its finished and I see no indication that large venues will be open anytime soon, prepare for a winter of discontent. As for the travel industry....

    As for working from home the benefits to some are obvious, but others need, even crave the company of others and hate isolation. I'd be interested to see, if given the option, how many went back to office life.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    Commuting whether by public transport or car can be tedious of course but I think long term it does get you out and seeing people (random people especially if using bus ,tube or train) and that, without realising it, keeps us human. Not sure stuck at home all week every week (even if you go out at 5 after the end of the working day) is great for long term mental health.
    Ultimately businesses and individuals will decide what works best though not government .However government should not be looking to put barriers in place of working in the office like face mask wearing (when no need) in either the work place or on public transport.

    Digital technology has revolutionised work and shopping. All the virus did was to accelerate an established trend. We are not going back.

    The genie is uncorked. The government is trying the equivalent of promoting horses and carts in the era of the motor car.

    Instead of trying to reinstate an analogue world it should be helping people transition.
    None of that answers the point. Many (most?) people at school and university tend to got to a library to work even if they have adequate workspace in their rooms and don’t need the books in the library. There is a reason for this.
    Poor accommodation.
    In my case, in my final year, a well furnished set of rooms (separate bedroom) in a grade 1 listed building. Try again.
    Lucky you, you’re in a minority I suggest. Sometimes it’s good to get out of the house. And do you know what, that’s still aloud. The wonderful thing is that you’re not obliged to commute for hours every day.
    No I'm not, actually. Poor accomodation is not the reason why people like a change of context in which to work. Ask some of them.

    You are just overstating a case. It would be terrible to have to walk 50 miles over broken glass to work every day, but it does not follow that being locked in a small metal box for the rest of one's life would improve matters.
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: The 3 (3.1 with boost) on McLaren to 'win' qualifying without the big 6 is worth considering.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    Commuting whether by public transport or car can be tedious of course but I think long term it does get you out and seeing people (random people especially if using bus ,tube or train) and that, without realising it, keeps us human. Not sure stuck at home all week every week (even if you go out at 5 after the end of the working day) is great for long term mental health.
    Ultimately businesses and individuals will decide what works best though not government .However government should not be looking to put barriers in place of working in the office like face mask wearing (when no need) in either the work place or on public transport.

    Digital technology has revolutionised work and shopping. All the virus did was to accelerate an established trend. We are not going back.

    The genie is uncorked. The government is trying the equivalent of promoting horses and carts in the era of the motor car.

    Instead of trying to reinstate an analogue world it should be helping people transition.
    None of that answers the point. Many (most?) people at school and university tend to got to a library to work even if they have adequate workspace in their rooms and don’t need the books in the library. There is a reason for this.
    Poor accommodation.
    In my case, in my final year, a well furnished set of rooms (separate bedroom) in a grade 1 listed building. Try again.
    Lucky you, you’re in a minority I suggest. Sometimes it’s good to get out of the house. And do you know what, that’s still aloud. The wonderful thing is that you’re not obliged to commute for hours every day.
    No I'm not, actually. Poor accomodation is not the reason why people like a change of context in which to work. Ask some of them.

    You are just overstating a case. It would be terrible to have to walk 50 miles over broken glass to work every day, but it does not follow that being locked in a small metal box for the rest of one's life would improve matters.
    The problem is the government is telling us that we all have to go back to physical commutes and all the bullshit that entails. It needs to butt out.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,216
    Morning all,

    Great header. Thanks David.

    "the urgency with which ministers and business leaders have called this week for people to return to working in offices and city centres suggests that they’re seriously concerned, and rightly so."

    Yet, having deployed The Boris for stirring words about getting back to the office, on Thursday. By Friday night Hancock was briefing that a second wave is looming and promises to be a nightmare with strong local lockdowns if not a national one.


    Who is in charge of this government?



  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Morning all,

    Great header. Thanks David.

    "the urgency with which ministers and business leaders have called this week for people to return to working in offices and city centres suggests that they’re seriously concerned, and rightly so."

    Yet, having deployed The Boris for stirring words about getting back to the office, on Thursday. By Friday night Hancock was briefing that a second wave is looming and promises to be a nightmare with strong local lockdowns if not a national one.


    Who is in charge of this government?



    Cummings, he’s probably out getting an eye test on the M1.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,216

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Stereodog said:

    I'm a model case for all of this. I live in a commuter town and travelled into London every day. I've loved working from home and will not be bullied into going back (with the support of my company). I'm £500 a month richer and I have two hours more leisure time. Instead of giving my lunch money to Pret it now goes to a lovely local sandwich shop.

    The Tories have spent years going on about not propping up failing nationalised industries. The government should put their money where their mouth is and let people remake the economy as they see fit.

    This is the sort of point that bears repetition. WFH doesn't work for everybody, but it suits more people than it doesn't, and the huge amount of cash, time and stress that can be saved from no longer being forced to commute is enormous.

    Beyond that, some people will go back to offices - either full or part time - because they miss being physically present with other people, or their employer feels that it is necessary, or both. But precisely nobody is going to start putting themselves through all that again in order to rescue a sandwich shop or a dry cleaners from ruin.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,629

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Now there's s surprise.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,216
    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    Commuting whether by public transport or car can be tedious of course but I think long term it does get you out and seeing people (random people especially if using bus ,tube or train) and that, without realising it, keeps us human. Not sure stuck at home all week every week (even if you go out at 5 after the end of the working day) is great for long term mental health.
    Ultimately businesses and individuals will decide what works best though not government .However government should not be looking to put barriers in place of working in the office like face mask wearing (when no need) in either the work place or on public transport.

    Digital technology has revolutionised work and shopping. All the virus did was to accelerate an established trend. We are not going back.

    The genie is uncorked. The government is trying the equivalent of promoting horses and carts in the era of the motor car.

    Instead of trying to reinstate an analogue world it should be helping people transition.
    None of that answers the point. Many (most?) people at school and university tend to got to a library to work even if they have adequate workspace in their rooms and don’t need the books in the library. There is a reason for this.
    Poor accommodation.
    In my case, in my final year, a well furnished set of rooms (separate bedroom) in a grade 1 listed building. Try again.
    Lucky you, you’re in a minority I suggest. Sometimes it’s good to get out of the house. And do you know what, that’s still aloud. The wonderful thing is that you’re not obliged to commute for hours every day.
    No I'm not, actually. Poor accomodation is not the reason why people like a change of context in which to work. Ask some of them.

    You are just overstating a case. It would be terrible to have to walk 50 miles over broken glass to work every day, but it does not follow that being locked in a small metal box for the rest of one's life would improve matters.
    I agree. It is partly an age thing of course. As a young graduate software guy in my twenties I would have absolutely hated sitting at home coding alone for days on end. Later in life, I might have a different attitude. As it is I am home all days as a carer.

    Historically, before factories, plenty of people worked at home - spinning wool or whatever in little cottages. But their neighbours were doing the same.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Couple of years ago, when I watched the news much more often, most of the local coverage about HS2 were complaints that it wasn't going to certain cities.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,216
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Now there's s surprise.
    The surprise is it lasted so long!
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    edited August 2020
    One of the government’s biggest problems is that it has spaffed away - as a former newspaper columnist might put it - shedloads of trust and credibility. Relatively few people now take what it says seriously because it has lied, demonstrated serial incompetence and treated the public like fools.

    We had a senior management away day yesterday in a hotel in Surrey. The consensus was that we need to be back in our office in EC4, but that it is impossible to rely on government advice right now, so we cannot mandate a return, it will have to be on a staggered, voluntary basis, as we work out the practical implications of ever-changing guidelines, with those who can and want to work from home able to do so. My guess is that we are not alone.

    We’re also going through a very tough redundancy process that is seeing dozens of jobs go. Again, I doubt we’re alone.

    The next few months and, probably years, are going to be brutal. I don’t think many people realise just how hard it’s going to be.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,216
    Jonathan said:

    Morning all,

    Great header. Thanks David.

    "the urgency with which ministers and business leaders have called this week for people to return to working in offices and city centres suggests that they’re seriously concerned, and rightly so."

    Yet, having deployed The Boris for stirring words about getting back to the office, on Thursday. By Friday night Hancock was briefing that a second wave is looming and promises to be a nightmare with strong local lockdowns if not a national one.


    Who is in charge of this government?



    Cummings, he’s probably out getting an eye test on the M1.
    Actually, he has had his long delayed operation according to newspaper reports. So no one has been in charge over the summer.

    Back next week iirc.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Morning all,

    Great header. Thanks David.

    "the urgency with which ministers and business leaders have called this week for people to return to working in offices and city centres suggests that they’re seriously concerned, and rightly so."

    Yet, having deployed The Boris for stirring words about getting back to the office, on Thursday. By Friday night Hancock was briefing that a second wave is looming and promises to be a nightmare with strong local lockdowns if not a national one.


    Who is in charge of this government?



    Cummings, he’s probably out getting an eye test on the M1.
    Actually, he has had his long delayed operation according to newspaper reports. So no one has been in charge over the summer.

    Back next week iirc.
    Well that explains much. I hope he’s having an operation in a hospital and not in a car park near a beauty spot.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,282
    edited August 2020
    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    Commuting whether by public transport or car can be tedious of course but I think long term it does get you out and seeing people (random people especially if using bus ,tube or train) and that, without realising it, keeps us human. Not sure stuck at home all week every week (even if you go out at 5 after the end of the working day) is great for long term mental health.
    Ultimately businesses and individuals will decide what works best though not government .However government should not be looking to put barriers in place of working in the office like face mask wearing (when no need) in either the work place or on public transport.

    Digital technology has revolutionised work and shopping. All the virus did was to accelerate an established trend. We are not going back.

    The genie is uncorked. The government is trying the equivalent of promoting horses and carts in the era of the motor car.

    Instead of trying to reinstate an analogue world it should be helping people transition.
    None of that answers the point. Many (most?) people at school and university tend to got to a library to work even if they have adequate workspace in their rooms and don’t need the books in the library. There is a reason for this.
    Poor accommodation.
    In my case, in my final year, a well furnished set of rooms (separate bedroom) in a grade 1 listed building. Try again.
    Lucky you, you’re in a minority I suggest. Sometimes it’s good to get out of the house. And do you know what, that’s still aloud. The wonderful thing is that you’re not obliged to commute for hours every day.
    No I'm not, actually. Poor accomodation is not the reason why people like a change of context in which to work. Ask some of them.

    You are just overstating a case. It would be terrible to have to walk 50 miles over broken glass to work every day, but it does not follow that being locked in a small metal box for the rest of one's life would improve matters.
    The problem is the government is telling us that we all have to go back to physical commutes and all the bullshit that entails. It needs to butt out.
    If it pans out the same as quarantine policy, after a few weeks of telling everyone to go back to work, we'll suddenly be told to stay at home.

    Last two days' figures for newly unquarantined Portugal, +399, +401, compared to quarantined on the same day Austria +328, +229. Populations both around 9-10 million; multiply by six or seven to scale up and the rate is in the same ballpark as in the UK.

    Meanwhile this is a good map showing distribution of cases within countries:

    https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/3a056fc8839d47969ef59949e9984a71

  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,419

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.

    Personally I think HS2 should be stopped and the losses cut. There's not even a figleaf of justification anymore.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,216
    Scott_xP said:
    Excellent thread and he got out of the putrid corpse once known as GOP in 2018.

    But iirc the Hatch Act does not apply to the POTUS. So it is even worse than it first appears - all his federal underlings are the ones who have possibly broken the law by staging this event for him.

    Sickening.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: The 3 (3.1 with boost) on McLaren to 'win' qualifying without the big 6 is worth considering.

    The ‘Big 6’ being Mercedes, Racing Point and Renault?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,629

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.
    As a Northerner by birth, and Midlander by choice, I don't think many Northern and Midland towns would score very highly on those criteria. I like Leicester, and am not planning to move away, but it is not a tourist hotspot for a reason.
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Not necessarily. If you don't have to pay for HS2 then you might choose not to spend that money at all, but equally you could also sink it into other projects.

    HS2, we are told by its advocates, is primarily about capacity. There's nothing particularly wrong with the East and West Coast Main Lines, it's just that there was concern that continually growing passenger numbers would mean that the network couldn't cope. Now, if half the passengers are no longer travelling then the problem disappears.

    OTOH, the Transpennine routes are crap, so there's no reason why the Government can't persist in throwing money at those. Indeed, if the Government were to end up, for argument's sake, spending the HS2 money on moving more civil service functions to York or Leeds, subsidising a biotechnology campus in Newcastle and re-opening some more rural branch lines on top of that, then might this be of more value than building the remainder of HS2?

    I'm not necessarily saying that any of this will happen because the Government gives a very distinct impression of not knowing its arse from its elbow, but do you see where I'm coming from?
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,079

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.

    Personally I think HS2 should be stopped and the losses cut. There's not even a figleaf of justification anymore.
    Freight capacity? Future proofing? People will still need to travel to see friends and family. You build infastructure before it is needed.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,629
    IanB2 said:

    The real impact of Brexit couldn't have come at a better time for the government to hide or deny it but not at a worse time for us to suffer it.

    It's a good lead and raises a serious issue - but is over-focused on the issue of commuting. My small town has zero reliance on commuting yet the retail sector is in the same difficulty and many shopkeepers are saying they can get to Xmas but may go under before next summer. The loss of the front end of the summer season, coupled with people's continuing reluctance to be out and about and the many who have now discovered easy and hassle-free online shopping, has critically hit footfall.

    I haven't been over to Ventnor this trip, but the shops in Ryde and Newport seemed reasonably busy. Definitely an autumnal feel for August though, and a short holiday season.

    The scooters seem to be here in force, despite no official rally. Its like Boomer quadrophenia.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,216
    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    Commuting whether by public transport or car can be tedious of course but I think long term it does get you out and seeing people (random people especially if using bus ,tube or train) and that, without realising it, keeps us human. Not sure stuck at home all week every week (even if you go out at 5 after the end of the working day) is great for long term mental health.
    Ultimately businesses and individuals will decide what works best though not government .However government should not be looking to put barriers in place of working in the office like face mask wearing (when no need) in either the work place or on public transport.

    Digital technology has revolutionised work and shopping. All the virus did was to accelerate an established trend. We are not going back.

    The genie is uncorked. The government is trying the equivalent of promoting horses and carts in the era of the motor car.

    Instead of trying to reinstate an analogue world it should be helping people transition.
    None of that answers the point. Many (most?) people at school and university tend to got to a library to work even if they have adequate workspace in their rooms and don’t need the books in the library. There is a reason for this.
    Poor accommodation.
    In my case, in my final year, a well furnished set of rooms (separate bedroom) in a grade 1 listed building. Try again.
    Lucky you, you’re in a minority I suggest. Sometimes it’s good to get out of the house. And do you know what, that’s still aloud. The wonderful thing is that you’re not obliged to commute for hours every day.
    No I'm not, actually. Poor accomodation is not the reason why people like a change of context in which to work. Ask some of them.

    You are just overstating a case. It would be terrible to have to walk 50 miles over broken glass to work every day, but it does not follow that being locked in a small metal box for the rest of one's life would improve matters.
    The problem is the government is telling us that we all have to go back to physical commutes and all the bullshit that entails. It needs to butt out.
    If it pans out the same as quarantine policy, after a few weeks of telling everyone to go back to work, we'll suddenly be told to stay at home.

    Last two days' figures for newly unquarantined Portugal, +399, +401, compared to quarantined on the same day Austria +328, +229. Populations both around 9-10 million; multiply by six or seven to scale up and the rate is in the same ballpark as in the UK.

    Meanwhile this is a good map showing distribution of cases within countries:

    https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/3a056fc8839d47969ef59949e9984a71

    Thanks. Great map.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,079
    In fact high speed rail makes more sense in a WFH world as people can travel quickly to off-site meetings and then back home again same day.
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.
    As a Northerner by birth, and Midlander by choice, I don't think many Northern and Midland towns would score very highly on those criteria. I like Leicester, and am not planning to move away, but it is not a tourist hotspot for a reason.
    That may be being unnecessarily pessimistic about parts outside the Greater South East. London is hugely expensive and much of it is a complete shithole. There are plenty of nice places to live in the Home Counties but they're also very costly to buy into.

    There is a reason why we hear reports of estate agents in Manchester getting a lot of enquiries from worried Hongkongers with BN(O) passports. They are not stupid and know a good deal when they see one.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,216

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Not necessarily. If you don't have to pay for HS2 then you might choose not to spend that money at all, but equally you could also sink it into other projects.

    HS2, we are told by its advocates, is primarily about capacity. There's nothing particularly wrong with the East and West Coast Main Lines, it's just that there was concern that continually growing passenger numbers would mean that the network couldn't cope. Now, if half the passengers are no longer travelling then the problem disappears.

    OTOH, the Transpennine routes are crap, so there's no reason why the Government can't persist in throwing money at those. Indeed, if the Government were to end up, for argument's sake, spending the HS2 money on moving more civil service functions to York or Leeds, subsidising a biotechnology campus in Newcastle and re-opening some more rural branch lines on top of that, then might this be of more value than building the remainder of HS2?

    I'm not necessarily saying that any of this will happen because the Government gives a very distinct impression of not knowing its arse from its elbow, but do you see where I'm coming from?
    Yes, but none of that will actually happen in the real world, as you say.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,216
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.
    As a Northerner by birth, and Midlander by choice, I don't think many Northern and Midland towns would score very highly on those criteria. I like Leicester, and am not planning to move away, but it is not a tourist hotspot for a reason.
    Except Richard III fans.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,216

    One of the government’s biggest problems is that it has spaffed away - as a former newspaper columnist might put it - shedloads of trust and credibility. Relatively few people now take what it says seriously because it has lied, demonstrated serial incompetence and treated the public like fools.

    We had a senior management away day yesterday in a hotel in Surrey. The consensus was that we need to be back in our office in EC4, but that it is impossible to rely on government advice right now, so we cannot mandate a return, it will have to be on a staggered, voluntary basis, as we work out the practical implications of ever-changing guidelines, with those who can and want to work from home able to do so. My guess is that we are not alone.

    We’re also going through a very tough redundancy process that is seeing dozens of jobs go. Again, I doubt we’re alone.

    The next few months and, probably years, are going to be brutal. I don’t think many people realise just how hard it’s going to be.

    Yep. I've been saying to mates recently that you have to our sort of age (mid 50s) to really remember bad economic times with millions unemployed. I came of age in early 1980s. Brutal for young people.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Mr. Sandpit, I think the big three now are Mercedes, Racing Point, and Red Bull.

    Yep, that is the case.

    Renault have been quick in practice but they do seem to usually underperform.
  • Options

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.
    As a Northerner by birth, and Midlander by choice, I don't think many Northern and Midland towns would score very highly on those criteria. I like Leicester, and am not planning to move away, but it is not a tourist hotspot for a reason.
    That may be being unnecessarily pessimistic about parts outside the Greater South East. London is hugely expensive and much of it is a complete shithole. There are plenty of nice places to live in the Home Counties but they're also very costly to buy into.

    There is a reason why we hear reports of estate agents in Manchester getting a lot of enquiries from worried Hongkongers with BN(O) passports. They are not stupid and know a good deal when they see one.
    My guess is that places on a train line within 60-90 minutes of London will see a surge of interest from younger people looking to start families/get on the property ladder who will end up doing one or two days a week down at HQ and the rest WFH. Some of our lot are looking at this right now. The political consequences of changing demographics in such places will be interesting.

  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,046
    If there is a certain 'counter-urbanisation' of the economic this should not be resisted by government. We need to remember that the concentration of economic activity in city centres has been quite stark. Within reason a degree of rebalancing isn't to be feared. As for public transport subsidies - are we honestly saying that fewer people spending thousands of pounds on commuting season tickets would be a bad thing?
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150

    Scott_xP said:
    Excellent thread and he got out of the putrid corpse once known as GOP in 2018.

    But iirc the Hatch Act does not apply to the POTUS. So it is even worse than it first appears - all his federal underlings are the ones who have possibly broken the law by staging this event for him.

    Sickening.
    Makes things very easier for Biden when he comes to clean the place out.
  • Options

    One of the government’s biggest problems is that it has spaffed away - as a former newspaper columnist might put it - shedloads of trust and credibility. Relatively few people now take what it says seriously because it has lied, demonstrated serial incompetence and treated the public like fools.

    We had a senior management away day yesterday in a hotel in Surrey. The consensus was that we need to be back in our office in EC4, but that it is impossible to rely on government advice right now, so we cannot mandate a return, it will have to be on a staggered, voluntary basis, as we work out the practical implications of ever-changing guidelines, with those who can and want to work from home able to do so. My guess is that we are not alone.

    We’re also going through a very tough redundancy process that is seeing dozens of jobs go. Again, I doubt we’re alone.

    The next few months and, probably years, are going to be brutal. I don’t think many people realise just how hard it’s going to be.

    Yep. I've been saying to mates recently that you have to our sort of age (mid 50s) to really remember bad economic times with millions unemployed. I came of age in early 1980s. Brutal for young people.
    I remember it well. The welfare system was also a lot less punitive back then, though hardly generous. Many people have a horrible awakening to come.

  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,046
    Sorry that should read 'counter-urbanisation of our economic GEOGRAPHY'
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,189
    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    Commuting whether by public transport or car can be tedious of course but I think long term it does get you out and seeing people (random people especially if using bus ,tube or train) and that, without realising it, keeps us human. Not sure stuck at home all week every week (even if you go out at 5 after the end of the working day) is great for long term mental health.
    Ultimately businesses and individuals will decide what works best though not government .However government should not be looking to put barriers in place of working in the office like face mask wearing (when no need) in either the work place or on public transport.

    Digital technology has revolutionised work and shopping. All the virus did was to accelerate an established trend. We are not going back.

    The genie is uncorked. The government is trying the equivalent of promoting horses and carts in the era of the motor car.

    Instead of trying to reinstate an analogue world it should be helping people transition.
    None of that answers the point. Many (most?) people at school and university tend to got to a library to work even if they have adequate workspace in their rooms and don’t need the books in the library. There is a reason for this.
    Poor accommodation.
    In my case, in my final year, a well furnished set of rooms (separate bedroom) in a grade 1 listed building. Try again.
    Lucky you, you’re in a minority I suggest. Sometimes it’s good to get out of the house. And do you know what, that’s still aloud. The wonderful thing is that you’re not obliged to commute for hours every day.
    No I'm not, actually. Poor accomodation is not the reason why people like a change of context in which to work. Ask some of them.

    You are just overstating a case. It would be terrible to have to walk 50 miles over broken glass to work every day, but it does not follow that being locked in a small metal box for the rest of one's life would improve matters.
    The problem is the government is telling us that we all have to go back to physical commutes and all the bullshit that entails. It needs to butt out.
    If it pans out the same as quarantine policy, after a few weeks of telling everyone to go back to work, we'll suddenly be told to stay at home.

    Last two days' figures for newly unquarantined Portugal, +399, +401, compared to quarantined on the same day Austria +328, +229. Populations both around 9-10 million; multiply by six or seven to scale up and the rate is in the same ballpark as in the UK.

    Meanwhile this is a good map showing distribution of cases within countries:

    https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/3a056fc8839d47969ef59949e9984a71

    Indeed, "Operation Save Pret" could see us all within weeks, stuck at home again for another three months.

    There is no strategy beyond the next crisis.
  • Options
    alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    Morning all,

    Great header. Thanks David.

    "the urgency with which ministers and business leaders have called this week for people to return to working in offices and city centres suggests that they’re seriously concerned, and rightly so."

    Yet, having deployed The Boris for stirring words about getting back to the office, on Thursday. By Friday night Hancock was briefing that a second wave is looming and promises to be a nightmare with strong local lockdowns if not a national one.


    Who is in charge of this government?



    And meanwhile there is a “leaked” Sage report suggesting that the Government is planning for a “reasonable worst case scenario” with deaths in line with an extremely bad flu season - with 81,000 “excess deaths” - A THIRD of which will be nothing to do with COVID!
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,951

    Indeed, "Operation Save Pret" could see us all within weeks, stuck at home again for another three months.

    There is no strategy beyond the next crisis.

    Superforecasters...
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,973

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Yes and Scotland yet again paying for London infrastructure from its fabled London deficit
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Yes, but none of that will actually happen in the real world, as you say.

    I haven't given up hope. The Government is useless but it isn't entirely without survival instincts. If it can't demonstrate progress in Northern parts then it is left entirely reliant on some voters' new-found dislike for the Labour Party. Under such circumstances, if Starmer succeeds in rebuilding bridges then the Tories are done for.

    One of the government’s biggest problems is that it has spaffed away - as a former newspaper columnist might put it - shedloads of trust and credibility. Relatively few people now take what it says seriously because it has lied, demonstrated serial incompetence and treated the public like fools.

    We had a senior management away day yesterday in a hotel in Surrey. The consensus was that we need to be back in our office in EC4, but that it is impossible to rely on government advice right now, so we cannot mandate a return, it will have to be on a staggered, voluntary basis, as we work out the practical implications of ever-changing guidelines, with those who can and want to work from home able to do so. My guess is that we are not alone.

    We’re also going through a very tough redundancy process that is seeing dozens of jobs go. Again, I doubt we’re alone.

    The next few months and, probably years, are going to be brutal. I don’t think many people realise just how hard it’s going to be.

    Yep. I've been saying to mates recently that you have to our sort of age (mid 50s) to really remember bad economic times with millions unemployed. I came of age in early 1980s. Brutal for young people.
    I'm not quite old enough to remember much about that period - I would've been eight at the time of the Miners' Strike, so I recall that we kept a box of candles in case of power cuts but that's about it - but I do think that's where we are heading. It's hard to say exactly how bad it will get in the medium term, since that rather depends on how many new jobs are created by new ways of living and working, how poorly paid they are and how slow they are in coming along, but I can certainly see a real problem coming both with long-term youth unemployment and with out-of-work over-50s who struggle ever to find another job because nobody thinks it's worth the investment to retrain them.

    I know that unemployment topped three million in the early Eighties, but the UK now has a substantially larger population than it did then. It's arguable that we'll be doing well if it's not passed four million by Christmas.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,745
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    When change comes, it can come quickly, unexpectedly and brutally.

    David Cameron found that out.

    Theresa May found that out.

    Let's hope BoZo finds out, really soon.

    That rather misses the point that we’re all about to find that out. And it is going to be exceedingly uncomfortable for most of us.
    Yes, as bad as things have been a lot of it has been about disruption rather than truly major impacts, which have been deferred. 2021 is likely to also be shit even if we dont get a second wave (which we will).
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,745
    Jonathan said:

    Do we now get to pick and choose to pay taxes only towards the things we use of care about?

    Which is an inherent problem in asking people if they want to scrap paying for things of course.

    But the BBC is in a particular difficulty. It's so huge and so diverse in its offering, which most wont take advantage of, that it is very easy to sell the idea that at the least the bit that should be paid for should be much reduced and the rest can pay its way.

    After all, which bits provide a public service? Which bits worthily subsidise a niche market?

    Change is coming, public attitudes will demand that. Dig in the heels and resist everything and the BBC haters may get to set the agenda completely and that will not be good.

    I dont know how the good of the BBC can be preserved, but I think big change is coming, has to come, and it could all go very wrong. But fighting the tide itself is not an option.
  • Options
    state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,417

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.
    As a Northerner by birth, and Midlander by choice, I don't think many Northern and Midland towns would score very highly on those criteria. I like Leicester, and am not planning to move away, but it is not a tourist hotspot for a reason.
    Except Richard III fans.
    A king who did not WFH but got stuck in !
  • Options
    alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    WFH - my view is that in the long run I will be much less effective to my employer as a permanent home worker. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to regularly go to the office unless compelled to do so. Out of laziness if nothing else.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,973

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.

    Personally I think HS2 should be stopped and the losses cut. There's not even a figleaf of justification anymore.
    Freight capacity? Future proofing? People will still need to travel to see friends and family. You build infastructure before it is needed.
    HS2 adds little other than cutting 10 minutes to London for southerners, it is a giant waste of money.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,629

    One of the government’s biggest problems is that it has spaffed away - as a former newspaper columnist might put it - shedloads of trust and credibility. Relatively few people now take what it says seriously because it has lied, demonstrated serial incompetence and treated the public like fools.

    We had a senior management away day yesterday in a hotel in Surrey. The consensus was that we need to be back in our office in EC4, but that it is impossible to rely on government advice right now, so we cannot mandate a return, it will have to be on a staggered, voluntary basis, as we work out the practical implications of ever-changing guidelines, with those who can and want to work from home able to do so. My guess is that we are not alone.

    We’re also going through a very tough redundancy process that is seeing dozens of jobs go. Again, I doubt we’re alone.

    The next few months and, probably years, are going to be brutal. I don’t think many people realise just how hard it’s going to be.

    Yep. I've been saying to mates recently that you have to our sort of age (mid 50s) to really remember bad economic times with millions unemployed. I came of age in early 1980s. Brutal for young people.
    I remember it well. The welfare system was also a lot less punitive back then, though hardly generous. Many people have a horrible awakening to come.

    Yes, I signed on a bit in the early eighties. Not a pleasure, but nothing like Fox jrs experience more recently. Fortunately his job looks secure.

    There may well be job losses in our dept too. There is misalignment between staffing and socially distanced capacity. Real problem in training too. Junior doctors are doing far fewer procedures, and will not have skills when they rotate. A lot depends on how long the current state lasts.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,189

    One of the government’s biggest problems is that it has spaffed away - as a former newspaper columnist might put it - shedloads of trust and credibility. Relatively few people now take what it says seriously because it has lied, demonstrated serial incompetence and treated the public like fools.

    We had a senior management away day yesterday in a hotel in Surrey. The consensus was that we need to be back in our office in EC4, but that it is impossible to rely on government advice right now, so we cannot mandate a return, it will have to be on a staggered, voluntary basis, as we work out the practical implications of ever-changing guidelines, with those who can and want to work from home able to do so. My guess is that we are not alone.

    We’re also going through a very tough redundancy process that is seeing dozens of jobs go. Again, I doubt we’re alone.

    The next few months and, probably years, are going to be brutal. I don’t think many people realise just how hard it’s going to be.

    Yep. I've been saying to mates recently that you have to our sort of age (mid 50s) to really remember bad economic times with millions unemployed. I came of age in early 1980s. Brutal for young people.
    I remember it well. The welfare system was also a lot less punitive back then, though hardly generous. Many people have a horrible awakening to come.

    I fear 1980s style hardship will just be another opportunity for the xenophobic dog-whistlers.

    That was Trump's tactic the other evening.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,745
    Scott_xP said:
    I really think too many are jumping to make permanent changes too quickly. They are so euphoric about the positives, which are certainly there, that theres no caution about assuming everything has indeed changed forever.

    I'm sure some things have, certain elements of my own have, but it might not be as many as we think.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Scott_xP said:
    Excellent thread and he got out of the putrid corpse once known as GOP in 2018.

    But iirc the Hatch Act does not apply to the POTUS. So it is even worse than it first appears - all his federal underlings are the ones who have possibly broken the law by staging this event for him.

    Sickening.
    What's far worse is the American political media's collective decision that no one cares about the blatant law breaking - despite spending considerable time and effort looking at possible Dem violations of the Hatch Act. The same Sunday Show presenters demanding that Dem admin memebers be investigated and prosecuted for a tweet that possibly maybe violated the act are shrugging their shoulders at the Trump admins 4 day orgy of blatant violations.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,745

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.
    As a Northerner by birth, and Midlander by choice, I don't think many Northern and Midland towns would score very highly on those criteria. I like Leicester, and am not planning to move away, but it is not a tourist hotspot for a reason.
    Except Richard III fans.
    A king who did not WFH but got stuck in !
    Happy to knife people in the back, metaphorically or possibly literally, to get the top job as well, so a true politician.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,233

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.

    Personally I think HS2 should be stopped and the losses cut. There's not even a figleaf of justification anymore.
    Freight capacity? Future proofing? People will still need to travel to see friends and family. You build infastructure before it is needed.
    One of the things you notice when waiting for a train on the Trent Valley line is that there are almost as many freight trains as passenger trains running on those tracks.

    And they run much more slowly (I don't think any are pathed for over 75mph) and therefore block off fast expresses.

    With the price of diesel likely to keep heading up, I expect to see a lot more long-distance freight on the railways, pulled by electric or bi-mode locomotives. Unfortunately, this cannot be moved on the nice quiet Central Wales line through Llandod - it will go on the main lines because they link the places where people want the freight to go.

    For that, the express passenger trains at least will have to go somewhere, and if WFH becomes the norm then suddenly putting Manchester and Leeds 90 minutes from London will make them very attractive places to live for London workers.

    Bear in mind HS2 will only actually restore the capacity essentially removed by Beeching. It's not quite 'new' in that regard.

    (Also, I would add that as the money is borrowed as a ring-fenced investment, it isn't 'available' for other projects in quite the way people seem to think.)
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,745
    malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.

    Personally I think HS2 should be stopped and the losses cut. There's not even a figleaf of justification anymore.
    Freight capacity? Future proofing? People will still need to travel to see friends and family. You build infastructure before it is needed.
    HS2 adds little other than cutting 10 minutes to London for southerners, it is a giant waste of money.
    That's crazy. It's a titantic waste of money.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,233

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.
    As a Northerner by birth, and Midlander by choice, I don't think many Northern and Midland towns would score very highly on those criteria. I like Leicester, and am not planning to move away, but it is not a tourist hotspot for a reason.
    Except Richard III fans.
    I'm hardly a Richard III fan (I have an instinctive dislike of infanticidal granny beating niece fancying usurpers) but I must admit I would like to visit the new museum of his at Leicester, if only to mutter all the time all the time under my breath at how utterly deranged Philippa Langley and Johanna Haminga are.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,745
    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Jonathan said:

    Commuting whether by public transport or car can be tedious of course but I think long term it does get you out and seeing people (random people especially if using bus ,tube or train) and that, without realising it, keeps us human. Not sure stuck at home all week every week (even if you go out at 5 after the end of the working day) is great for long term mental health.
    Ultimately businesses and individuals will decide what works best though not government .However government should not be looking to put barriers in place of working in the office like face mask wearing (when no need) in either the work place or on public transport.

    Digital technology has revolutionised work and shopping. All the virus did was to accelerate an established trend. We are not going back.

    The genie is uncorked. The government is trying the equivalent of promoting horses and carts in the era of the motor car.

    Instead of trying to reinstate an analogue world it should be helping people transition.
    None of that answers the point. Many (most?) people at school and university tend to got to a library to work even if they have adequate workspace in their rooms and don’t need the books in the library. There is a reason for this.
    Poor accommodation.
    In my case, in my final year, a well furnished set of rooms (separate bedroom) in a grade 1 listed building. Try again.
    Lucky you, you’re in a minority I suggest. Sometimes it’s good to get out of the house. And do you know what, that’s still aloud. The wonderful thing is that you’re not obliged to commute for hours every day.
    No I'm not, actually. Poor accomodation is not the reason why people like a change of context in which to work. Ask some of them.

    You are just overstating a case. It would be terrible to have to walk 50 miles over broken glass to work every day, but it does not follow that being locked in a small metal box for the rest of one's life would improve matters.
    The problem is the government is telling us that we all have to go back to physical commutes and all the bullshit that entails. It needs to butt out.
    Governments are perfectly entitled to try to persuade the country to do things even where they do not control such things. They dont need to butt out, politicians comment on things not their business all the time.

    The public and businesses are entitled to just ignore such interventions though of course.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,233
    malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.

    Personally I think HS2 should be stopped and the losses cut. There's not even a figleaf of justification anymore.
    Freight capacity? Future proofing? People will still need to travel to see friends and family. You build infastructure before it is needed.
    HS2 adds little other than cutting 10 minutes to London for southerners, it is a giant waste of money.
    Actually (assuming Birmingham is 'the south' to you) it will cut 50 minutes off journey times.

    Or to put it another way, if it is completed to Leeds it will be quicker to travel from Leeds to London than it is to travel from Birmingham to London now - 87 minutes against 95 minutes.
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.

    The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic

    Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).

    So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.

    Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.

    The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.

    Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?

    As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.

    However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
    And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.
    As a Northerner by birth, and Midlander by choice, I don't think many Northern and Midland towns would score very highly on those criteria. I like Leicester, and am not planning to move away, but it is not a tourist hotspot for a reason.
    That may be being unnecessarily pessimistic about parts outside the Greater South East. London is hugely expensive and much of it is a complete shithole. There are plenty of nice places to live in the Home Counties but they're also very costly to buy into.

    There is a reason why we hear reports of estate agents in Manchester getting a lot of enquiries from worried Hongkongers with BN(O) passports. They are not stupid and know a good deal when they see one.
    My guess is that places on a train line within 60-90 minutes of London will see a surge of interest from younger people looking to start families/get on the property ladder who will end up doing one or two days a week down at HQ and the rest WFH. Some of our lot are looking at this right now. The political consequences of changing demographics in such places will be interesting.
    It will. Fast forward ten or twenty years and we may find that great swathes of the South-East will have become marginals or fallen to Labour, whilst the Conservatives will have wiped Labour out in much of what's left of its former Northern strongholds.

    If we had enough constituency level demographic data then it would probably be possible to accurately predict the outcome in the bulk of seats by plugging a few numbers into a formula: the percentage of voters from various ethnic minority groups, the median age of the electorate, the percentage of voters identifying primarily as British, and the percentage of voters who have a university degree. It's entirely possible that future General Elections will see Labour swapping seats in County Durham for others in Surrey.
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    Commuting whether by public transport or car can be tedious of course but I think long term it does get you out and seeing people (random people especially if using bus ,tube or train) and that, without realising it, keeps us human. Not sure stuck at home all week every week (even if you go out at 5 after the end of the working day) is great for long term mental health.
    Ultimately businesses and individuals will decide what works best though not government .However government should not be looking to put barriers in place of working in the office like face mask wearing (when no need) in either the work place or on public transport.

    Digital technology has revolutionised work and shopping. All the virus did was to accelerate an established trend. We are not going back.

    The genie is uncorked. The government is trying the equivalent of promoting horses and carts in the era of the motor car.

    Instead of trying to reinstate an analogue world it should be helping people transition.
    Philosophically, that's a problem for this government. One strand of Brexit was "Take Back Control". The Cummings reforms of the Civil Service are all about the idea that, given the right inputs and clever enough people, the centre can advantageously direct all of the nation's work.

    What Covid and WFH show is that this is a mug's game. Central government can no more control extreme events than a flea riding an elephant. Wise government recognises and fears this. This government has yet to have that epiphany, which has potential to be brutal.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,715
    Governments have done no planning that they have shared with the public for how to live with the virus in the medium term. They did a belated lockdown and then unlockdown. The last significant review was in May, I think.

    By living with the virus, I mean how to go about something approaching normal life while keeping the epidemic in check.

    The only planned control appears to be a vaccine that may prove effective some time next year. There is at least one winter to get through first and it will be grim.
  • Options
    alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    edited August 2020
    Lots of large employers are talking a good and bullish game about home working - but there are reasons why many were reluctant to encourage too much in the past and those reasons won’t have gone away. I suspect that it will prove much harder to keep tabs on people, how much work they are really doing (especially over time as job roles change). And then there’s the whole gamut of issues of staff having “issues at home” which impact on performance (and which good employers will detect and try to work through when people have a presence in the office but which may go entirely unnoticed otherwise until too late).

    I also wonder about things like fraud being a lot easier in a permanent home working environment. There are implications for record keeping and security of data which will not be easy to work out as well.

    It has been pointed out that the perspective on here is largely from people in established roles, mainly people with families which may consume a large part of the (social) time and who are quite content in where they are and don’t have any great expectation of much changing in their lives in the near future.

    Those who are younger, entering the workforce now, eager to learn and meet new people, to develop their careers may have a very different perspective. Or will do before very long.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,561
    edited August 2020


    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.

    I agree, though people might also start thinking about the weather as well, in which case Scotland and the north are screwed.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,383
    edited August 2020
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Do we now get to pick and choose to pay taxes only towards the things we use of care about?

    Which is an inherent problem in asking people if they want to scrap paying for things of course.

    But the BBC is in a particular difficulty. It's so huge and so diverse in its offering, which most wont take advantage of, that it is very easy to sell the idea that at the least the bit that should be paid for should be much reduced and the rest can pay its way.

    After all, which bits provide a public service? Which bits worthily subsidise a niche market?

    Change is coming, public attitudes will demand that. Dig in the heels and resist everything and the BBC haters may get to set the agenda completely and that will not be good.

    I dont know how the good of the BBC can be preserved, but I think big change is coming, has to come, and it could all go very wrong. But fighting the tide itself is not an option.
    Other countries have television licences: France; Germany; most of Europe. The anti-licence movement here does seem to be popular with pundits working for the BBC's rivals. I do not know what the answer is but predict that even if the BBC were closed down tomorrow, the licence fee would remain. However, it is also possible that the BBC could be funded by advertising or subscription, though whether Sky or ITV would welcome increased competition for those is another question.

    ETA you are also right about the "axe Radio 1 and the rest of the BBC except for the bits I like such as Radio 3/4 and BBC 4 (delete as appropriate)" tendency.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,189
    Scott_xP said:

    Indeed, "Operation Save Pret" could see us all within weeks, stuck at home again for another three months.

    There is no strategy beyond the next crisis.

    Superforecasters...
    I think that forecasting the next week, let alone the next year is something of a dark art during the pandemic. Although this government don't appear to be even trying.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897
    edited August 2020
    Scott_xP said:
    More and more companies are realising that many white-collar workers can work from home and suffer less of a productivity loss than the price of their expensive central offices.

    Governments need to embrace this change, even though it will cause short term disruption, because companies are going to do it anyway. We are seeing a decade’s change in a year thanks to the pandemic.
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    One of the government’s biggest problems is that it has spaffed away - as a former newspaper columnist might put it - shedloads of trust and credibility. Relatively few people now take what it says seriously because it has lied, demonstrated serial incompetence and treated the public like fools.

    We had a senior management away day yesterday in a hotel in Surrey. The consensus was that we need to be back in our office in EC4, but that it is impossible to rely on government advice right now, so we cannot mandate a return, it will have to be on a staggered, voluntary basis, as we work out the practical implications of ever-changing guidelines, with those who can and want to work from home able to do so. My guess is that we are not alone.

    We’re also going through a very tough redundancy process that is seeing dozens of jobs go. Again, I doubt we’re alone.

    The next few months and, probably years, are going to be brutal. I don’t think many people realise just how hard it’s going to be.

    Yep. I've been saying to mates recently that you have to our sort of age (mid 50s) to really remember bad economic times with millions unemployed. I came of age in early 1980s. Brutal for young people.
    I remember it well. The welfare system was also a lot less punitive back then, though hardly generous. Many people have a horrible awakening to come.

    But today’s pensioners think it’s a bed of roses for benefit claimants, they think if you are black you just go down and get chit for a new Telly and other furniture even if you don’t need it. They think white people can’t they have never heard of sanction and think the so called unemployed are all working and have no concept of immediate call to interview. They live in the 60’s but for some reason want to return to them.
  • Options
    alex_ said:

    WFH - my view is that in the long run I will be much less effective to my employer as a permanent home worker. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to regularly go to the office unless compelled to do so. Out of laziness if nothing else.

    My experience is that the people I deal with who are WFH are operating less effectively than they were previously.

    Now perhaps their effectiveness will increase as they discover an optimum work method.

    Or perhaps a less effective workforce might be worth the reduced office, and possibly pay, costs to their employer.

    But, I fear, many people are being complacent about the negative effects of WFH.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,216

    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Do we now get to pick and choose to pay taxes only towards the things we use of care about?

    Which is an inherent problem in asking people if they want to scrap paying for things of course.

    But the BBC is in a particular difficulty. It's so huge and so diverse in its offering, which most wont take advantage of, that it is very easy to sell the idea that at the least the bit that should be paid for should be much reduced and the rest can pay its way.

    After all, which bits provide a public service? Which bits worthily subsidise a niche market?

    Change is coming, public attitudes will demand that. Dig in the heels and resist everything and the BBC haters may get to set the agenda completely and that will not be good.

    I dont know how the good of the BBC can be preserved, but I think big change is coming, has to come, and it could all go very wrong. But fighting the tide itself is not an option.
    Other countries have television licences: France; Germany; most of Europe. The anti-licence movement here does seem to be popular with pundits working for the BBC's rivals. I do not know what the answer is but predict that even if the BBC were closed down tomorrow, the licence fee would remain. However, it is also possible that the BBC could be funded by advertising or subscription, though whether Sky or ITV would welcome increased competition for those is another question.

    ETA you are also right about the "axe Radio 1 and the rest of the BBC except for the bits I like such as Radio 3/4 and BBC 4 (delete as appropriate)" tendency.
    "France; Germany; most of Europe" have it you say?

    Oh God, that's it, the licence fee is definitely finished under this government then.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125

    alex_ said:

    WFH - my view is that in the long run I will be much less effective to my employer as a permanent home worker. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to regularly go to the office unless compelled to do so. Out of laziness if nothing else.

    My experience is that the people I deal with who are WFH are operating less effectively than they were previously.

    Now perhaps their effectiveness will increase as they discover an optimum work method.

    Or perhaps a less effective workforce might be worth the reduced office, and possibly pay, costs to their employer.

    But, I fear, many people are being complacent about the negative effects of WFH.
    It's partly a function of so many places not being cranked up to 100% of what they were. When something closer to that returns, people will still have to put in the full shift to get the work done, wherever located.
  • Options
    The government may take a major hit to its popularity if it's perceived to be forcing productive and happier WFH workers back into the office.

    The Daily Mail, always such a key bellwether for the government, was bursting with thousands of contributions yesterday on the themes of happier and more productive output from home, and tory-supporting commercial property owners being desperate to have people back in.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,216
    alex_ said:

    Lots of large employers are talking a good and bullish game about home working - but there are reasons why many were reluctant to encourage too much in the past and those reasons won’t have gone away. I suspect that it will prove much harder to keep tabs on people, how much work they are really doing (especially over time as job roles change). And then there’s the whole gamut of issues of staff having “issues at home” which impact on performance (and which good employers will detect and try to work through when people have a presence in the office but which may go entirely unnoticed otherwise until too late).

    I also wonder about things like fraud being a lot easier in a permanent home working environment. There are implications for record keeping and security of data which will not be easy to work out as well.

    It has been pointed out that the perspective on here is largely from people in established roles, mainly people with families which may consume a large part of the (social) time and who are quite content in where they are and don’t have any great expectation of much changing in their lives in the near future.

    Those who are younger, entering the workforce now, eager to learn and meet new people, to develop their careers may have a very different perspective. Or will do before very long.

    This. 1000x this. :+1:
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,282

    alex_ said:

    WFH - my view is that in the long run I will be much less effective to my employer as a permanent home worker. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to regularly go to the office unless compelled to do so. Out of laziness if nothing else.

    My experience is that the people I deal with who are WFH are operating less effectively than they were previously.

    Now perhaps their effectiveness will increase as they discover an optimum work method.

    Or perhaps a less effective workforce might be worth the reduced office, and possibly pay, costs to their employer.

    But, I fear, many people are being complacent about the negative effects of WFH.
    True, but there also big potential savings in office costs and the ancillaries (in house catering, security, office services etc) and also in travel expenses if people aren't travelling around the country/world so much.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    Personally, I find I work far better at an office than at home. I get far too easily distracted at home.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    Fishing said:


    Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.

    I agree, though people might also start thinking about the weather as well, in which case Scotland and the north are screwed.
    *gloriously sunny Devon gives a big smug wave*
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,046
    Sean_F said:

    Personally, I find I work far better at an office than at home. I get far too easily distracted at home.

    One of the other challenges we face is that we don't have large houses. Two people working from home with kids in fairly cramped conditions - certainly true for many of my generation - is no picnic. However it should be up to employers to decide what works best not the government and it's newfound thirst for central planning.
This discussion has been closed.