The election 2015
- Thread starter trudij
- Start date
What!!! I realise about 20% of the journey goes through tunnels which can mask it, but hadn't realised the track was set at such a high elevation that the passengers suffered from oxygen depletion
wrong again. The biggest growth has been in leisure non rush hour traffic.
Why hey are the roads busy then? Maybe more people with more money to drive and own cars?
Im not denying that services in some areas can be bad but rail travel igenerally is miles better than it was a coupe, of decades ago, it's not just privatisation of course but anyone who thinks it was better back then is barmy imo
EC1
On a break
if you think having to pay for health care doesn't include all your assets down to 23k..including your home if you no longer live in it..then you are wrong..very wrong.
and conversely if you have paid only 30k on a 400k property..you aren't wealthy
borrowing money to buy a house does not make you wealthy..in fact it says the opposite..why borrow if you are wealthy?
and conversely if you have paid only 30k on a 400k property..you aren't wealthy
borrowing money to buy a house does not make you wealthy..in fact it says the opposite..why borrow if you are wealthy?
Last edited:
ist what they bloody call it!
EC1
On a break
Clive..just saying wrong again doesn't make it so i'm afraid
AliGupter
At the Start
I travel East Coast to London a lot and the service is ok but it's expensive for what it is. Unless you can plan 2/3 months in advance you're going to get stung badly (fortunately I usually do, if I don't it's work related and paid for by the company anyway).
I got on a train a few years back in Portugal, 3 hours from Albufeira to Lisbon, which must be a decent equivalent of Newcastle to London, bought tickets on the day and it was €30 first class. I think you're looking at about £180 here? You didn't get the free tea and sandwiches but does that really warrant the price difference?
I got on a train a few years back in Portugal, 3 hours from Albufeira to Lisbon, which must be a decent equivalent of Newcastle to London, bought tickets on the day and it was €30 first class. I think you're looking at about £180 here? You didn't get the free tea and sandwiches but does that really warrant the price difference?
EC1
On a break
you got Grassy's problem..you make up what people say..i didn't say the whole network...up here..and not bloody Manchester
i will do some research though on what you southerners think of your trains
EC1
On a break
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
again..did i say everybody???..it happens to a lot of people..its a reality
I can guarantee you one thing though..IF you do end up needing care..and a hell of a lot of people do need rest of life care..forget thinking you are wealthy..you won't be for long
Last edited:
Well I'll tell you my experience
twenty plus years ago I had to always give extra time for cancellations and late arrivals. Now I don't even look at indicator boards. Five routes go through Twickenham and one in particular is right in the button every day
there are far far more trains than before too . Sunday's used to be four an hour. Now it's ten. Also carriages per train have gone up to ten from usual four or eight
sunday trains used to be empty now they as busy as a just out of rush hour weekday train.
The rolling stock is in a different world to then .
Yes its it's expensive and that's an issue across uk. Too much I believe but no one will say opposite will they?
i use while swt network and frankly they are very good. Great western too and Virgin. Se trains are up to scratch but southern are not great. The London overground is perhaps the most remarkable success of all
twenty plus years ago I had to always give extra time for cancellations and late arrivals. Now I don't even look at indicator boards. Five routes go through Twickenham and one in particular is right in the button every day
there are far far more trains than before too . Sunday's used to be four an hour. Now it's ten. Also carriages per train have gone up to ten from usual four or eight
sunday trains used to be empty now they as busy as a just out of rush hour weekday train.
The rolling stock is in a different world to then .
Yes its it's expensive and that's an issue across uk. Too much I believe but no one will say opposite will they?
i use while swt network and frankly they are very good. Great western too and Virgin. Se trains are up to scratch but southern are not great. The London overground is perhaps the most remarkable success of all
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
EC1
On a break
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11558430/Travelling-by-train-is-st-says-transport-boss.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30945127
http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/st...leads-to-drop-in-rail-passenger-satisfaction/
http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/05/train...thing-to-happen-to-british-transport-5007000/
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Privatisation-disaster-railways/story-25840330-detail/story.html
http://money.aol.co.uk/2015/01/29/rail-ticket-prices-treble-since-privatisation/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ce8a40c-4d9b-11e4-9683-00144feab7de.html#axzz3hmNUiePY
https://fromthemurkydepths.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/why-many-rail-issues-arent-southeasterns-fault/
this was the reprivatised one
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/competition-watchdog-raises-concerns-over-east-coast-rail-privatisation-10030715.html
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/riding-on-britains-last-non-privatised-rail-network-822
Last edited:
Well there is a lot there.
Firstly I travel se trains sometimes out of rush hour and they are excellent. No problems at all
eush hour crushes are down to the booming economy. Which you don't believe exists of course. The jubilee line has one eight carriage train a minute in rush hours and is still packed eastbound in the morning. What more can be done? We need new lines but taht takes years
as for fares, the if the government subsidies, you stil pay. Isn't that obvious?
eats coast is good I know but so are othe recent privatised services such as hull trains and the one that goes to Sunderland which got top ratings .
To be hinest I'm not against a national rail service but I do not for one minute belueve that the problems are down to privatisation. Or should I say the operators. Long term investment has been sorely lacking but no one will convince me that it was better before. I am a heavy user of trains and will tell it as I find it.
Firstly I travel se trains sometimes out of rush hour and they are excellent. No problems at all
eush hour crushes are down to the booming economy. Which you don't believe exists of course. The jubilee line has one eight carriage train a minute in rush hours and is still packed eastbound in the morning. What more can be done? We need new lines but taht takes years
as for fares, the if the government subsidies, you stil pay. Isn't that obvious?
eats coast is good I know but so are othe recent privatised services such as hull trains and the one that goes to Sunderland which got top ratings .
To be hinest I'm not against a national rail service but I do not for one minute belueve that the problems are down to privatisation. Or should I say the operators. Long term investment has been sorely lacking but no one will convince me that it was better before. I am a heavy user of trains and will tell it as I find it.
EC1
On a break
i think the costs are down to privatisation tbh.
I wouldn't fear them being nationalised..but it would have to be done correctly..which as shown above ..it can be done
Making money from railways has always been hard..hence 1948..and then back again to private hands...eventually people throw hands up in air and have had enough of trying to make coin from it..the difference now though is that due to extortionate fares they making money...if fares had been the same when it were nationalised i'm sure also it would have made money too.
Its not really hard to make money off a product when you charging 3 times what its actually worth,..i think anyone selling anything when multiplying a fair price by 3 would coin it.
EC1
On a break
going back to Corbyn..they keep telling everyone he is favourite to win..but on betfair Burnham is still just favourite...with over a million traded.
Surely if you just watched the news...you would think he were a nailed on cert according to them.
Surely if you just watched the news...you would think he were a nailed on cert according to them.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
I think Burnham is verging on a good thing.
Corbyn might have the Unions in his pocket, but under OMOV, it's questionable if that means very much, and Burnham will make most appeal to the aspirational soft-left and Blairites amongst the caucus. Cooper can't beat Burnham amongst the core vote, and the other mot is a no-mark.
The fact that all four are easentially unelectable, is neither here nor there, it seems, and the party seems destined to splinter in the medium-term, in my view......something that also probably applies to the Lib Dems (who somehow managed to elect someone so heroically-forgettable, I've still no idea what his name is). Corbyn may end-up leading a party with a hard-left social agenda - pulling some of the Lib Dem leftie faction along in his wake....and something akin to the old SDP may emerge from what's left-over.
The way I see it, it could be years before a genuine electoral threat to the Tories emerges, and that is not healthy in any respect.
Corbyn might have the Unions in his pocket, but under OMOV, it's questionable if that means very much, and Burnham will make most appeal to the aspirational soft-left and Blairites amongst the caucus. Cooper can't beat Burnham amongst the core vote, and the other mot is a no-mark.
The fact that all four are easentially unelectable, is neither here nor there, it seems, and the party seems destined to splinter in the medium-term, in my view......something that also probably applies to the Lib Dems (who somehow managed to elect someone so heroically-forgettable, I've still no idea what his name is). Corbyn may end-up leading a party with a hard-left social agenda - pulling some of the Lib Dem leftie faction along in his wake....and something akin to the old SDP may emerge from what's left-over.
The way I see it, it could be years before a genuine electoral threat to the Tories emerges, and that is not healthy in any respect.
Last edited:
BennyB
Senior Jockey
EC - if you think the average man hasn't benefited from economic growth you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Living standards are almost immeasurably better than they were 30 or 40 years ago.
Look at life expectancy, households with access to a car, real average income per capita, proportion of household budget spent on food, overseas holidays - any bloody measure you can think of really - and the average bloke has a far better time of things now. And what's that down to? Economic growth, all courtesy of those dreadful capitalist bastards that everyone loves to hate.
Look at life expectancy, households with access to a car, real average income per capita, proportion of household budget spent on food, overseas holidays - any bloody measure you can think of really - and the average bloke has a far better time of things now. And what's that down to? Economic growth, all courtesy of those dreadful capitalist bastards that everyone loves to hate.
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Riddle me this, then, because I sure as hell don't understand.
If economic growth is so beneficial to everyone, then how come hundreds of thousands of citizens are driven to food banks; how pay in real terms has fallen for the sixth successive year; how the ambitions of young people to own their own home has become an unfulfillable dream for most of them (particularly in the South).
Please don't think, anyone, ('specially Warbler) that this is just someone outside the UK criticising Britain for the sake of it. It is the same in the country in which I live. We are being told that the economy is growing, that the "markets are vibrant", that the international institutions are pleased with our progress. But all that I can see all around me are ordinary Joe's losing their homes, their jobs, and their dignity.
On a similar issue, aren't the young generation today (not sure what that means?) supposed to be the first generation in decades that will be worse off than their parents?
They've certainly had property ownership pushed beyond a vast majority of them unless they're able to get a sponsoring relative to assist. They most definitely have to pay for a higher educcation, and so far as we can tell the significant area(s) of job growth have come in self-employment and low paid, low skilled, zero hours tertiary sectors (as well as commission based telesales pesterers)
It strikes me that we're re-entering the old Reaganist idea of trickle down again which never did work. It would be more accurate to think of it as 'trickle so far' and then dry up (or trickle off shore)
It's not external criticism that I get vexed about incidentally, but rather inconsistent and selective criticism (something you haven't done). I don't mind anyone criticising Cameron over Libya as I think he's behaved reckelessly irresponsibly, but then I think their are other culprits too and we need reminding of the immoral hand that the French had in this fiasco as well. Same with immigration. Let's not pretend that the UK is singularly in some great immigrant hating minority. Huge swathes of the French population vote for the National Front, and I doubt that there's any real appetite in Ireland to take in thousands of refugees from Nigeria, Libya, or Syria either. I think there's some quite interesting contradictions in the whole thing once you dig into the political contamination, but I can't be bothered with it (albeit it's probably more interesting than trying to SEO a bloody website)
They've certainly had property ownership pushed beyond a vast majority of them unless they're able to get a sponsoring relative to assist. They most definitely have to pay for a higher educcation, and so far as we can tell the significant area(s) of job growth have come in self-employment and low paid, low skilled, zero hours tertiary sectors (as well as commission based telesales pesterers)
It strikes me that we're re-entering the old Reaganist idea of trickle down again which never did work. It would be more accurate to think of it as 'trickle so far' and then dry up (or trickle off shore)
It's not external criticism that I get vexed about incidentally, but rather inconsistent and selective criticism (something you haven't done). I don't mind anyone criticising Cameron over Libya as I think he's behaved reckelessly irresponsibly, but then I think their are other culprits too and we need reminding of the immoral hand that the French had in this fiasco as well. Same with immigration. Let's not pretend that the UK is singularly in some great immigrant hating minority. Huge swathes of the French population vote for the National Front, and I doubt that there's any real appetite in Ireland to take in thousands of refugees from Nigeria, Libya, or Syria either. I think there's some quite interesting contradictions in the whole thing once you dig into the political contamination, but I can't be bothered with it (albeit it's probably more interesting than trying to SEO a bloody website)
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
The only reason ordinary man has those things and didn't in the 70's is nothing to do with him being better off..its to do with him being prepared to take more debt on. If ordianry man had taken the same debt level in the 70's he would have had all those things you list.
Lets look at 1971..and actually look at a things we had then and what they cost now...in fact i'll not include the recent years which might skew this..the recent austerity won't affect this much..except that since 2011 we haven't got better off have we?
Average Salary in 1971 = £2000
Average Salary in 2011 = £25000
increase factor 12.5
The average house in 1971 = £5632
The average house in 2011 = £238874
increase factor 42.4
that doesn't look like being better off to me...and its the biggest outlay anyone has each month.
gallon of petrol in 1971 = 33p
gallon of petrol in 2011 = £6
increase factor = 18.2
another chunk of outlay where we are paying a lot more than we did in 1971
thats two main items of many people's outlay that show we are paying more than we did in 1971..food may be a bit cheaper now..is it going to pull back those increases..no it isn't.
I can't find data for gas and electric..but i'll hazard a guess that they have gone up more than 12.5 times since 1971..another major outlay each month.
A foreign holiday being cheaper means nothing compared to the above.
You have confused living standards with people's ability to borrow. We are worse off today than we were in 1971...to the extent that even the most basic need..a home..is beyond the reach of many young people
Last edited:
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Good post, EC.
A truly dismal post.
The idea that buying a house is an outright cost id ecomonically illiterate.
To coneniently ignore a whole raft of items that a far far cheaper than back then is laughable
Clothes
Telecoms
Electrical goods
Cars
Holidays
List goes on
The idea that buying a house is an outright cost id ecomonically illiterate.
To coneniently ignore a whole raft of items that a far far cheaper than back then is laughable
Clothes
Telecoms
Electrical goods
Cars
Holidays
List goes on