Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The New Year starts with little cheer for any of the parties

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited January 2 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The New Year starts with little cheer for any of the parties

The above Wikipedia table shows all the final polls of 2017 with the exception of the latest YouGov which had LAB 2% ahead.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,831
    Tory to Lib Dem defection on Camden Council:
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,576

    Tory to Lib Dem defection on Camden Council:

    Ooohhhh... I do hope it's SeanT's councillor...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,576

    Tory to Lib Dem defection on Camden Council:

    http://democracy.camden.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=193

    According to Camden Council website, he's an Independent, although he was elected (top of the slate in 2014 as a Conservative.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    rcs1000 said:

    Tory to Lib Dem defection on Camden Council:

    http://democracy.camden.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=193

    According to Camden Council website, he's an Independent, although he was elected (top of the slate in 2014 as a Conservative.
    He is in Swiss Cottage. He was my Tory opponent the very first time I stood for a London council seat way back in 1986, in that same ward. I would never have guessed he would end up with us; he seemed a business-oriented Tory in the traditional mould, although of course that was a long time ago. It does however indicate that Brexit puts at risk the Tories' traditional middle class suppport in remain-leaning areas of the country.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    edited January 2
    This from nearly a year ago, when, as a former leader, he left the Tories over Brexit:

    http://camdennewjournal.com/article/exclusive-former-tory-leader-quits-party-over-brexit

    “I simply don’t feel comfortable any more in a party where most are genuinely enthusiastic, even triumphalist, about Brexit, while many of the rest have capitulated and call for unity as they stare at the Emperor’s new clothes,” he says.

    Whether the new phalanx of Conservative local candidates, many enthusiastic for Brexit and involved in Andrea Leadsom’s leadership campaign, will find north-west Camden fertile territory, time will tell.”

  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,839
    rcs1000 said:

    Tory to Lib Dem defection on Camden Council:

    http://democracy.camden.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=193

    According to Camden Council website, he's an Independent, although he was elected (top of the slate in 2014 as a Conservative.
    More fake news? :D
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,103
    On Mike's last point, I wonder how many on pb could actually name UKIP's current leader. I had to stop and think.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    Tory to Lib Dem defection on Camden Council:

    Because it reduces the Tory chance of controlling the PRC?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    'No change’ feels about right, doesn’t it. Black swan needed.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,077

    On Mike's last point, I wonder how many on pb could actually name UKIP's current leader. I had to stop and think.

    I reckon if asked, 90% would say it was still Nigel Farage.

    I'm not sure they'd be wrong.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540

    On Mike's last point, I wonder how many on pb could actually name UKIP's current leader. I had to stop and think.

    Henry Bolton of course, he’s the other name in the Betfair party leader exit dates markets ;)

    Also, an interesting one I just noticed, Lay Theresa May at 1.95 to be out first against Cable, Corbyn and Sturgeon. Might be a bit of value there in a thin market.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051208/market?marketId=1.132776540
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    If there actually is a reshuffl;e at the end of the week, and either Davis or Bojo (or both) a demoted/retired are they likely to kick up a fuss.
    Given their ‘success’ in their jobs it wouldn’t be unreasonable to fire them but would they sulk or would they cause problems? And how could May avoid the latter?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,947

    On Mike's last point, I wonder how many on pb could actually name UKIP's current leader. I had to stop and think.

    On the subject of Councillors:

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,103

    On Mike's last point, I wonder how many on pb could actually name UKIP's current leader. I had to stop and think.

    I reckon if asked, 90% would say it was still Nigel Farage.

    I'm not sure they'd be wrong.
    He's moved onto his next project: ConEire.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540

    If there actually is a reshuffl;e at the end of the week, and either Davis or Bojo (or both) a demoted/retired are they likely to kick up a fuss.
    Given their ‘success’ in their jobs it wouldn’t be unreasonable to fire them but would they sulk or would they cause problems? And how could May avoid the latter?

    Good questions, it’s not easy to demote someone in a way that keeps them onside. There’s very senior roles like Party Chairman available, which might work for Davis. Boris, on the other hand, is going to be very difficult to move because he was an over-promoted demonstration of the Peter Principle last time around and has a fan-base among the members.
    Or maybe Boris gets PC and Davis does a swap with Gove at DEFRA?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,103

    If there actually is a reshuffl;e at the end of the week, and either Davis or Bojo (or both) a demoted/retired are they likely to kick up a fuss.
    Given their ‘success’ in their jobs it wouldn’t be unreasonable to fire them but would they sulk or would they cause problems? And how could May avoid the latter?

    Yes they'd cause problems and sulk. Should she try to mitigate that? No. She should either keep them or unceremoniously dump them. No halfway house will work.

    If there are any halfway talented Leavers, she might try promoting them to head off ructions, but halfway talented Leavers seem very thin on the ground.

    Me? I'd keep David Davis and dump Boris Johnson. It's not as if he's been loyal to her so she might as well strike first.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    Making Boris Party Chair might have a good effect on the grassroots but how’s he going to take swapping Paris or Moscow for Newcastle or Stoke on Trent?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    It's interesting to reflect how few members of Cameron's 2010 cabinet are left.

    I can think of Hunt, Hammond and May, but off-hand I can't think of any others.

    It's even more surprising given how few major reshuffles there have been (three, I think) although of course there were a total of six Liberal Democrat ministers in the coalition years.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    On Mike's last point, I wonder how many on pb could actually name UKIP's current leader. I had to stop and think.

    I reckon if asked, 90% would say it was still Nigel Farage.

    I'm not sure they'd be wrong.
    He's moved onto his next project: ConEire.
    Aer UnLingus?
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited January 2
    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    13% of your salary, just to get to work.

    The tories are taking the piss.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    If there actually is a reshuffl;e at the end of the week, and either Davis or Bojo (or both) a demoted/retired are they likely to kick up a fuss.
    Given their ‘success’ in their jobs it wouldn’t be unreasonable to fire them but would they sulk or would they cause problems? And how could May avoid the latter?

    EU Acolytes aside, most people think the Phase 1 outcome has been ok. Not clear that Davis has done a conspicuously bad job. I think he stays. BoJo is embarrassing but may be better to keep in place as he's relatively harmless where he is (yes I know that dual citizen lady in Iran has potentially suffered) but could be very destructive outside the tent. Keep him hogtied for now and dispose of him later
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,947
    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?


    Now that is a good deal Sunil! If only we could be more like our continental cousins.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,576
    Charles said:

    If there actually is a reshuffl;e at the end of the week, and either Davis or Bojo (or both) a demoted/retired are they likely to kick up a fuss.
    Given their ‘success’ in their jobs it wouldn’t be unreasonable to fire them but would they sulk or would they cause problems? And how could May avoid the latter?

    EU Acolytes aside, most people think the Phase 1 outcome has been ok. Not clear that Davis has done a conspicuously bad job. I think he stays. BoJo is embarrassing but may be better to keep in place as he's relatively harmless where he is (yes I know that dual citizen lady in Iran has potentially suffered) but could be very destructive outside the tent. Keep him hogtied for now and dispose of him later
    Despite all the crap, phase one has gone pretty well. Our bill is pretty modest, we have the transition period we need, and the citizens' rights stuff is as expected.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Good morning, everyone.

    I suspect the stalemate will indeed continue, although a conspicuously good/bad turn of events might shift things.

    Odd Corbyn's so quiet on Iran. He used to love talking about it:
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,584
    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,809
    edited January 2
    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    13% of your salary, just to get to work.

    The tories are taking the piss.

    Yeah, if only that well known Tory Gordon Brown hadn't given the Tory client vote free bus travel we could have used the money to help subsidise the cost of travel for people who really need it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Agreed.

    One thing that has always puzzled me is that people say London is too crowded and expensive - and yet when you suggest moving elsewhere to them to bring down costs they look at you as if you have grown a second head.

    While I can understand that Stoke or Ulveston would not be for everybody, Manchester and Leeds are great cities and far cheaper than London.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Is that the reason for lots of commuters? Amongst my family and mates it's almost exclusively because one or both partners doesn't want to live in a city, or to avoid disruption for a child's education. Commuting will become less of an issue as technology develops, especially video conferencing...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Is that the reason for lots of commuters? Amongst my family and mates it's almost exclusively because one or both partners doesn't want to live in a city, or to avoid disruption for a child's education. Commuting will become less of an issue as technology develops, especially video conferencing...
    In my crude and anecdotal experience (disclaimer - far less than many others on here) there is also a cultural difference. On the continent people prefer living in cities. In this country people prefer living in the countryside if they can afford it, certainly as they get older.

    Strangely this desire doesn't stop them complaining when farmers spread turkey shit all over their fields.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    edited January 2

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    One small issue is that an increase in rail fares, especially season tickets effectively drains money from local economies. If 1000 people travel from Chelmsford and pay an extra £380, thats’ £380k that won’t be spent in Chelmsford.
  • On topic, we're one major snafu for either Leader to see a change in VI.

    Would anyone really want to bet on Mrs May or Mr Corbyn screwing up at least once this year?

    After all Mrs May's lead on best PM fell yesterday with YouGov to a tepid 6% whilst she trails Corbyn significantly with most if not all pollsters on approval ratings.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    edited January 2
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?


    Now that is a good deal Sunil! If only we could be more like our continental cousins.
    His figures are wrong. It costs £6540 for an annual season ticket from London to Peterborough. His figure by contrast is for a more flexible ticket that allows a variety of routes and stop offs.

    While his ticket price on DB is correct for standard class, it should also be noted that the equivalent DB ticket for first class is €7225.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    ydoethur said:

    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Is that the reason for lots of commuters? Amongst my family and mates it's almost exclusively because one or both partners doesn't want to live in a city, or to avoid disruption for a child's education. Commuting will become less of an issue as technology develops, especially video conferencing...
    In my crude and anecdotal experience (disclaimer - far less than many others on here) there is also a cultural difference. On the continent people prefer living in cities. In this country people prefer living in the countryside if they can afford it, certainly as they get older.

    Strangely this desire doesn't stop them complaining when farmers spread turkey shit all over their fields.
    Does it date back 130 yeasrs to the ‘Three Acres and a Cow’ slogan of Joseph Chamberlain?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258
    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    13% of your salary, just to get to work.

    The tories are taking the piss.

    It's a complex issue, but part of the reason is that the mentioned countries have greater (in Germany's case much greater) indirect subsidies:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies

    UK policy is to increasingly make passengers pay for their journeys, rather than the costs come from general taxation. The main way to get cheaper tickets for passengers will be to put the costs onto general taxation.

    Is that what we want to do on a network that, in places, is at capacity?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    edited January 2

    ydoethur said:

    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Is that the reason for lots of commuters? Amongst my family and mates it's almost exclusively because one or both partners doesn't want to live in a city, or to avoid disruption for a child's education. Commuting will become less of an issue as technology develops, especially video conferencing...
    In my crude and anecdotal experience (disclaimer - far less than many others on here) there is also a cultural difference. On the continent people prefer living in cities. In this country people prefer living in the countryside if they can afford it, certainly as they get older.

    Strangely this desire doesn't stop them complaining when farmers spread turkey shit all over their fields.
    Does it date back 130 yeasrs to the ‘Three Acres and a Cow’ slogan of Joseph Chamberlain?
    I think it's more likely to be snobbishness about 'country seats'. There is however an entire book on that campaign and its after-effects called 'Back to the Land; The Pastoral Impulse in England' (I think - long time since I read it and I can't remember who wrote it).

    Edit - and of course the irony is Chamberlain was an industrialist and an urban politician, although that may be why, like the Chartists, he didn't realise you need more than three acres for a cow.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    One small issue is that an increase in rail fares, especially season tickets effectively drains money from local economies. If 1000 people travel from Chelmsford and pay an extra £380, thats’ £380k that won’t be spent in Chelmsford.
    But if it encourages just one of them to start a business in Chelmsford instead, it might increase the wealth locally.

    Economics is not as simple as you, or I, sugggest in our examples.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,774

    Good morning, everyone.

    I suspect the stalemate will indeed continue, although a conspicuously good/bad turn of events might shift things.

    Odd Corbyn's so quiet on Iran. He used to love talking about it:

    You forgot the IRA and Venezuela too. These are the silver bullets with which the bearded lycanthrope may be slain.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258
    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Is that the reason for lots of commuters? Amongst my family and mates it's almost exclusively because one or both partners doesn't want to live in a city, or to avoid disruption for a child's education. Commuting will become less of an issue as technology develops, especially video conferencing...
    The effects of telecommuting on public transport have been talked about for a couple of decades, and seriously for the last ten. We'll have to wait to see if the recent slow-down in passenger growth continues (which was mainly fed by a decrease in season ticket sales).

    Personally I'm doubtful, but we'll see.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978

    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Is that the reason for lots of commuters? Amongst my family and mates it's almost exclusively because one or both partners doesn't want to live in a city, or to avoid disruption for a child's education. Commuting will become less of an issue as technology develops, especially video conferencing...
    The effects of telecommuting on public transport have been talked about for a couple of decades, and seriously for the last ten. We'll have to wait to see if the recent slow-down in passenger growth continues (which was mainly fed by a decrease in season ticket sales).

    Personally I'm doubtful, but we'll see.
    It's a good point, and I know I am an edge case, but the rise of online bidding at auction has rapidly decreased the number who travel twice to a sale: once to view and once to bid...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    13% of your salary, just to get to work.

    The tories are taking the piss.

    It's a complex issue, but part of the reason is that the mentioned countries have greater (in Germany's case much greater) indirect subsidies:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies

    UK policy is to increasingly make passengers pay for their journeys, rather than the costs come from general taxation. The main way to get cheaper tickets for passengers will be to put the costs onto general taxation.

    Is that what we want to do on a network that, in places, is at capacity?
    Some figures:

    Germany has 33,000km of railways to GB's 15,000km

    Germany has 79 billion passenger km of journeys to GB's 64 billion passenger km

    Germany has 2.01bn individual journeys compared to the UK's 1.7 billion individual journeys.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Is that the reason for lots of commuters? Amongst my family and mates it's almost exclusively because one or both partners doesn't want to live in a city, or to avoid disruption for a child's education. Commuting will become less of an issue as technology develops, especially video conferencing...
    Sadly we said that a decade ago. Bosses seem to still want to see people in an office from 9-5 from Monday to Friday. Until the bosses' attitudes to home working change then the problem still exists no matter the technology. They could even get away with paying lower salaries if they're sensible about it,but they prefer to pay massive salaries to force everyone to commute daily to a central London office.

    I've worked in various types of teams over 20 years, the best for morale was a remote team that met up once a fortnight for a meeting with beers, but all worked from home several hundred miles from each other the rest of the time.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    13% of your salary, just to get to work.

    The tories are taking the piss.

    It's a complex issue, but part of the reason is that the mentioned countries have greater (in Germany's case much greater) indirect subsidies:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies

    UK policy is to increasingly make passengers pay for their journeys, rather than the costs come from general taxation. The main way to get cheaper tickets for passengers will be to put the costs onto general taxation.

    Is that what we want to do on a network that, in places, is at capacity?
    Agreed. Given commuting is largely a choice by the employed that involves energy consumption, I don't see why it should be heavily subsidised.

    I spend thousands each year on trains. Money well spent to avoid driving.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258
    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    13% of your salary, just to get to work.

    The tories are taking the piss.

    It's a complex issue, but part of the reason is that the mentioned countries have greater (in Germany's case much greater) indirect subsidies:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies

    UK policy is to increasingly make passengers pay for their journeys, rather than the costs come from general taxation. The main way to get cheaper tickets for passengers will be to put the costs onto general taxation.

    Is that what we want to do on a network that, in places, is at capacity?
    Some figures:

    Germany has 33,000km of railways to GB's 15,000km

    Germany has 79 billion passenger km of journeys to GB's 64 billion passenger km

    Germany has 2.01bn individual journeys compared to the UK's 1.7 billion individual journeys.
    And Germany's subsidy is 17 billion Euros compared to our 4.4 billion ...
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    If there actually is a reshuffl;e at the end of the week, and either Davis or Bojo (or both) a demoted/retired are they likely to kick up a fuss.
    Given their ‘success’ in their jobs it wouldn’t be unreasonable to fire them but would they sulk or would they cause problems? And how could May avoid the latter?

    EU Acolytes aside, most people think the Phase 1 outcome has been ok. Not clear that Davis has done a conspicuously bad job. I think he stays. BoJo is embarrassing but may be better to keep in place as he's relatively harmless where he is (yes I know that dual citizen lady in Iran has potentially suffered) but could be very destructive outside the tent. Keep him hogtied for now and dispose of him later
    Despite all the crap, phase one has gone pretty well. Our bill is pretty modest, we have the transition period we need, and the citizens' rights stuff is as expected.
    So far its been the most successful negotiation with the EU for decades.

    I wonder if Cameron and Osborne are thinking "why didn't we make more of an effort two years ago" ?

    Because if they had Cameron would still be PM and Osborne would now be planning when to succeed him.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    On current polling we are heading for the third hung parliament in 4 successive general elections. Only this time it may be the SNP rather than the LDs and DUP who hold the balance of power, despite the SNP losses in June most Scottish polls still have them as the largest party in Scotland.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    13% of your salary, just to get to work.

    The tories are taking the piss.

    It's a complex issue, but part of the reason is that the mentioned countries have greater (in Germany's case much greater) indirect subsidies:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies

    UK policy is to increasingly make passengers pay for their journeys, rather than the costs come from general taxation. The main way to get cheaper tickets for passengers will be to put the costs onto general taxation.

    Is that what we want to do on a network that, in places, is at capacity?
    Some figures:

    Germany has 33,000km of railways to GB's 15,000km

    Germany has 79 billion passenger km of journeys to GB's 64 billion passenger km

    Germany has 2.01bn individual journeys compared to the UK's 1.7 billion individual journeys.
    And Germany's subsidy is 17 billion Euros compared to our 4.4 billion ...
    Add in population as well - difficult to be sure in either case but best guesses are 82 million and 63 million.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Mr. Ace, the Second Punic War is not, alas, a subject of interest for most of the population. That doesn't stop me posting about it here.

    And like Minucius Rufus, the Cunctator's magister equitum, you've completely missed the point. You think it's a good thing we have a Leader of the Opposition that, four years ago, was making the case for Iran's regime?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416
    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Is that the reason for lots of commuters? Amongst my family and mates it's almost exclusively because one or both partners doesn't want to live in a city, or to avoid disruption for a child's education. Commuting will become less of an issue as technology develops, especially video conferencing...
    Plenty of people do long commutes even when they don't work in London, or another city for that matter.

    If a work location has good communications, whether that is rail or road, it will encourage commuting from longer distance.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Agreed.

    One thing that has always puzzled me is that people say London is too crowded and expensive - and yet when you suggest moving elsewhere to them to bring down costs they look at you as if you have grown a second head.

    While I can understand that Stoke or Ulveston would not be for everybody, Manchester and Leeds are great cities and far cheaper than London.
    The fact remains that there is a very large (probably over a million homes) housing shortage in the country, and any significant such move would just transfer the problem elsewhere.

    It is probably one of the few problems facing government which could be solved comparatively easily with determined action, given that the costs of government (or council) borrowing would almost certainly see a positive return on investment.
    It seems absurd that we can commit £50bn to an economically marginal HS2, which won't have any significant benefit for a decade, not to mention £20bn plus to the economically absurd Hinckley project, while neglecting housing.

    That the media should then obsess over a tiny number of unoccupied properties is simply ridiculous.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    edited January 2
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Agreed.

    One thing that has always puzzled me is that people say London is too crowded and expensive - and yet when you suggest moving elsewhere to them to bring down costs they look at you as if you have grown a second head.

    While I can understand that Stoke or Ulveston would not be for everybody, Manchester and Leeds are great cities and far cheaper than London.
    Most people move to the Home Counties once they have a family and commute to London from there, it still works out cheaper overall because the housing is less expensive, even with the commute. Even in the Northwest commuting from say Trafford to Manchester while cheaper than living in the Home Counties is not that much cheaper than say commuting from Kent or Essex.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    edited January 2
    ydoethur said:

    Some figures:

    Germany has 33,000km of railways to GB's 15,000km

    Thanks to Dr Beeching. :( Thankfully there are now finally some attempts to correct his vandalism
    ydoethur said:

    Germany has 79 billion passenger km of journeys to GB's 64 billion passenger km

    Which looks like a pretty good reflection of our difference in population
    ydoethur said:

    Germany has 2.01bn individual journeys compared to the UK's 1.7 billion individual journeys.

    Again reflecting our difference in population and also the fact that Germany is about 40% larger than the UK

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited January 2

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    13% of your salary, just to get to work.

    The tories are taking the piss.

    Yeah, if only that well known Tory Gordon Brown hadn't given the Tory client vote free bus travel we could have used the money to help subsidise the cost of travel for people who really need it.
    Free off-peak bus travel for pensioners costs very little. It was - and is - an excellent policy.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Is that the reason for lots of commuters? Amongst my family and mates it's almost exclusively because one or both partners doesn't want to live in a city, or to avoid disruption for a child's education. Commuting will become less of an issue as technology develops, especially video conferencing...
    Plenty of people do long commutes even when they don't work in London, or another city for that matter.

    If a work location has good communications, whether that is rail or road, it will encourage commuting from longer distance.
    The longest daily commute I have ever done is 109 miles - Gloucester to Aberystwyth.

    Now that really wasn't a case of good communications but as it was a temporary contract on less than generous pay I couldn't move it for it. So I was kind of stuck.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168
    Mortimer said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    13% of your salary, just to get to work.

    The tories are taking the piss.

    It's a complex issue, but part of the reason is that the mentioned countries have greater (in Germany's case much greater) indirect subsidies:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies

    UK policy is to increasingly make passengers pay for their journeys, rather than the costs come from general taxation. The main way to get cheaper tickets for passengers will be to put the costs onto general taxation.

    Is that what we want to do on a network that, in places, is at capacity?
    Agreed. Given commuting is largely a choice by the employed that involves energy consumption, I don't see why it should be heavily subsidised.

    I spend thousands each year on trains. Money well spent to avoid driving.
    I'm not sure it's the lack of subsidy per se which is at the root of the objections.
    Thar fares should go up every year by at least RPI - IOW an continuously increasing proportion of most commuters' incomes - is unsustainable.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Is that the reason for lots of commuters? Amongst my family and mates it's almost exclusively because one or both partners doesn't want to live in a city, or to avoid disruption for a child's education. Commuting will become less of an issue as technology develops, especially video conferencing...
    The effects of telecommuting on public transport have been talked about for a couple of decades, and seriously for the last ten. We'll have to wait to see if the recent slow-down in passenger growth continues (which was mainly fed by a decrease in season ticket sales).

    Personally I'm doubtful, but we'll see.
    It's a good point, and I know I am an edge case, but the rise of online bidding at auction has rapidly decreased the number who travel twice to a sale: once to view and once to bid...
    Yes. Also, the fact that the variety of jobs is so much greater nowadays. I knew the Spondon British Celanese plant quite well, and there are pictures of thousands of people getting off trains at the start of a shift. Such 'bulk' jobs are reducing in numbers as factories, mines and similar close or computerise. In their place we have millions of people working in jobs that did not exist thirty years ago.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582


    ydoethur said:

    Some figures:

    Germany has 33,000km of railways to GB's 15,000km

    Thanks to Dr Beeching. :( Thankfully there are now finally some attempts to correct his vandalism
    ydoethur said:

    Germany has 79 billion passenger km of journeys to GB's 64 billion passenger km

    Which looks like a pretty good reflection of our difference in population
    ydoethur said:

    Germany has 2.01bn individual journeys compared to the UK's 1.7 billion individual journeys.

    Again reflecting our difference in population and also the fact that Germany is about 40% larger than the UK

    Which was my point. We have allowing for population difference the same number of journeys on a network half the size.

    Of course, that looks better than it is, because Germany's population is much more evenly spread across the country than ours - so a medium-sized chunk of our railways in the south-east of England, where one-third of the population lives, gets much more heavily used, while lines in the highlands of Scotland or north and mid Wales are invariably empty.
  • Pong said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    13% of your salary, just to get to work.

    The tories are taking the piss.

    Yeah, if only that well known Tory Gordon Brown hadn't given the Tory client vote free bus travel we could have used the money to help subsidise the cost of travel for people who really need it.
    Free off-peak bus travel for pensioners costs very little. It was - and is - an excellent policy.
    It costs over one billion pounds per year just in England.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258
    Pong said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    13% of your salary, just to get to work.

    The tories are taking the piss.

    Yeah, if only that well known Tory Gordon Brown hadn't given the Tory client vote free bus travel we could have used the money to help subsidise the cost of travel for people who really need it.
    Free off-peak bus travel for pensioners costs very little. It was - and is - an excellent policy.
    No, it is a terrible thing. It's led to the closure of many bus services, especially in rural areas.

    It's no good giving pensioners free bus travel if their village no longer has a bus service ...
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416
    ydoethur said:

    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Is that the reason for lots of commuters? Amongst my family and mates it's almost exclusively because one or both partners doesn't want to live in a city, or to avoid disruption for a child's education. Commuting will become less of an issue as technology develops, especially video conferencing...
    Plenty of people do long commutes even when they don't work in London, or another city for that matter.

    If a work location has good communications, whether that is rail or road, it will encourage commuting from longer distance.
    The longest daily commute I have ever done is 109 miles - Gloucester to Aberystwyth.

    Now that really wasn't a case of good communications but as it was a temporary contract on less than generous pay I couldn't move it for it. So I was kind of stuck.
    Were you capable of working after over three hours of travelling ?

    I really doubt I would be able to work anywhere near my potential if I was doing that commute.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,856
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    If there actually is a reshuffl;e at the end of the week, and either Davis or Bojo (or both) a demoted/retired are they likely to kick up a fuss.
    Given their ‘success’ in their jobs it wouldn’t be unreasonable to fire them but would they sulk or would they cause problems? And how could May avoid the latter?

    EU Acolytes aside, most people think the Phase 1 outcome has been ok. Not clear that Davis has done a conspicuously bad job. I think he stays. BoJo is embarrassing but may be better to keep in place as he's relatively harmless where he is (yes I know that dual citizen lady in Iran has potentially suffered) but could be very destructive outside the tent. Keep him hogtied for now and dispose of him later
    Despite all the crap, phase one has gone pretty well. Our bill is pretty modest, we have the transition period we need, and the citizens' rights stuff is as expected.
    Mrs May's achievement is to create the expectation of a deal while lowering expectations of the Brexit outcome amongst Leavers. Those lower expectations will be met. She is in a pretty good situation right now.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    Pong said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    13% of your salary, just to get to work.

    The tories are taking the piss.

    Yeah, if only that well known Tory Gordon Brown hadn't given the Tory client vote free bus travel we could have used the money to help subsidise the cost of travel for people who really need it.
    Free off-peak bus travel for pensioners costs very little. It was - and is - an excellent policy.
    It costs over one billion pounds per year just in England.
    *waits for TSE to get ban hammer from OGH*
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    ydoethur said:

    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Is that the reason for lots of commuters? Amongst my family and mates it's almost exclusively because one or both partners doesn't want to live in a city, or to avoid disruption for a child's education. Commuting will become less of an issue as technology develops, especially video conferencing...
    Plenty of people do long commutes even when they don't work in London, or another city for that matter.

    If a work location has good communications, whether that is rail or road, it will encourage commuting from longer distance.
    The longest daily commute I have ever done is 109 miles - Gloucester to Aberystwyth.

    Now that really wasn't a case of good communications but as it was a temporary contract on less than generous pay I couldn't move it for it. So I was kind of stuck.
    Were you capable of working after over three hours of travelling ?

    I really doubt I would be able to work anywhere near my potential if I was doing that commute.
    I was young and energetic then. I doubt if I could do it now!

    Thing is that I was used to it. When I wasn't commuting to Aber to teach I was driving the other way to London to do research. Also I had (have) a biggish diesel that's comfortable and easy to drive.

    I will admit however that it was also the final step that pushed me out of academia and into schoolteaching.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,370
    Off topic: Today was meant to be my first day back at work after the Christmas break. Instead I am sat in bed drinking Lemsip and using tissues at a very rapid rate.

    At least I've got you lot for company!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    Off topic: Today was meant to be my first day back at work after the Christmas break. Instead I am sat in bed drinking Lemsip and using tissues at a very rapid rate.

    At least I've got you lot for company!

    That sucks.

    Get well soon!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,668
    Mr. Rentool, one shall sacrifice a goat to Asclepius on your behalf.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    ydoethur said:

    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Is that the reason for lots of commuters? Amongst my family and mates it's almost exclusively because one or both partners doesn't want to live in a city, or to avoid disruption for a child's education. Commuting will become less of an issue as technology develops, especially video conferencing...
    Plenty of people do long commutes even when they don't work in London, or another city for that matter.

    If a work location has good communications, whether that is rail or road, it will encourage commuting from longer distance.
    The longest daily commute I have ever done is 109 miles - Gloucester to Aberystwyth.

    Now that really wasn't a case of good communications but as it was a temporary contract on less than generous pay I couldn't move it for it. So I was kind of stuck.
    That’s a long commute though. 2 1/2 hours each way? Aber is a right pain to get to, I was a student there many moons ago.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    ydoethur said:


    ydoethur said:

    Some figures:

    Germany has 33,000km of railways to GB's 15,000km

    Thanks to Dr Beeching. :( Thankfully there are now finally some attempts to correct his vandalism
    ydoethur said:

    Germany has 79 billion passenger km of journeys to GB's 64 billion passenger km

    Which looks like a pretty good reflection of our difference in population
    ydoethur said:

    Germany has 2.01bn individual journeys compared to the UK's 1.7 billion individual journeys.

    Again reflecting our difference in population and also the fact that Germany is about 40% larger than the UK

    Which was my point. We have allowing for population difference the same number of journeys on a network half the size.

    Of course, that looks better than it is, because Germany's population is much more evenly spread across the country than ours - so a medium-sized chunk of our railways in the south-east of England, where one-third of the population lives, gets much more heavily used, while lines in the highlands of Scotland or north and mid Wales are invariably empty.
    It is interesting that since privatisation passenger numbers have more than doubled whilst at the same time we now have just about the safest rail network in the whole of Europe (for passengers and workers). The problem of course is how to increase capacity in those areas where it is most needed. This is where I think the priorities are completely wrong. We need far more capacity on the commuter routes into London and on the cross country routes in the North or England. Not only are we not addressing that, short of knocking down thousands of houses I am not sure how we can address it - at least where London is concerned.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,481
    Won't the Conservatives be relatively happy/relieved to be holding up at around 40% in the circumstances?

    Labour will be wondering why they aren't further ahead?

    Lib-Dems remain toxic through the coalition years?

    Happy New Year PB.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416
    edited January 2
    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    If there actually is a reshuffl;e at the end of the week, and either Davis or Bojo (or both) a demoted/retired are they likely to kick up a fuss.
    Given their ‘success’ in their jobs it wouldn’t be unreasonable to fire them but would they sulk or would they cause problems? And how could May avoid the latter?

    EU Acolytes aside, most people think the Phase 1 outcome has been ok. Not clear that Davis has done a conspicuously bad job. I think he stays. BoJo is embarrassing but may be better to keep in place as he's relatively harmless where he is (yes I know that dual citizen lady in Iran has potentially suffered) but could be very destructive outside the tent. Keep him hogtied for now and dispose of him later
    Despite all the crap, phase one has gone pretty well. Our bill is pretty modest, we have the transition period we need, and the citizens' rights stuff is as expected.
    Mrs May's achievement is to create the expectation of a deal while lowering expectations of the Brexit outcome amongst Leavers. Those lower expectations will be met. She is in a pretty good situation right now.
    She's been helped by the predictions of the more ardent EU fans of the "£60bn initially, increasing every month as the City relocates to Frankfurt and the car factories shut down".
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258


    ydoethur said:

    Some figures:

    Germany has 33,000km of railways to GB's 15,000km

    Thanks to Dr Beeching. :( Thankfully there are now finally some attempts to correct his vandalism
    In most cases, the Beeching closures were justified and *not* vandalism. Yes, some closures were stupid with hindsight (e.g. the Waverley line or Grand Central), but can you honestly say that (e.g.) Northampton to Peterborough should have remained open, yet alone the numerous branch lines that were cut?

    It should also be noted that hundreds of miles of lines closed before the Beeching report (780 miles in the year before (*)), and that some lines recommended to be closed in the report were kept open (infamously the mid-Wales line).

    Hence what people think of as the Beeching cuts are in fact, much more complex, and he often gets blamed for closures that were not his responsibility (not that they were really his responsibility anyway: they were recommendations - the blame with closures lie with the Conservative and Labour governments).

    A much greater criticism of the closures IMO is that the lines should have been kept as complete corridors rather than being sold piecemeal.

    (*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeching_cuts#Closures_by_year
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    One small issue is that an increase in rail fares, especially season tickets effectively drains money from local economies. If 1000 people travel from Chelmsford and pay an extra £380, thats’ £380k that won’t be spent in Chelmsford.
    But if it encourages just one of them to start a business in Chelmsford instead, it might increase the wealth locally.

    Economics is not as simple as you, or I, sugggest in our examples.
    Catching up after a, mercifully brief, power cut.
    Agree; it’s very easy to make simple economic statements and mislead both onself and ones audience.
    Politicians do it all the time!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Mortimer said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    Yes, it partly reflects the shortage of affordable rented accommodation in British cities compared with those countries - but I'm not sure that's a consolation to those affected. The combination of not being able to live near work and soaring train prices is nasty. Ideally business would just move out of Lndon and save on wage costs as they'd still be a better deal, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen enough.
    Is that the reason for lots of commuters? Amongst my family and mates it's almost exclusively because one or both partners doesn't want to live in a city, or to avoid disruption for a child's education. Commuting will become less of an issue as technology develops, especially video conferencing...
    Plenty of people do long commutes even when they don't work in London, or another city for that matter.

    If a work location has good communications, whether that is rail or road, it will encourage commuting from longer distance.
    The longest daily commute I have ever done is 109 miles - Gloucester to Aberystwyth.

    Now that really wasn't a case of good communications but as it was a temporary contract on less than generous pay I couldn't move it for it. So I was kind of stuck.
    Were you capable of working after over three hours of travelling ?

    I really doubt I would be able to work anywhere near my potential if I was doing that commute.
    I was young and energetic then. I doubt if I could do it now!

    Thing is that I was used to it. When I wasn't commuting to Aber to teach I was driving the other way to London to do research. Also I had (have) a biggish diesel that's comfortable and easy to drive.

    I will admit however that it was also the final step that pushed me out of academia and into schoolteaching.
    Much easier, thoiugh, to drive to London (at least West London) from Gloucester than to drive from the to Aberystwyth.
    Friend of mine used to have to do a weekly commute Llanberis to Cardiff. There were long stretches, he said, where 40mph was a good speed.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258

    ydoethur said:


    ydoethur said:

    Some figures:

    Germany has 33,000km of railways to GB's 15,000km

    Thanks to Dr Beeching. :( Thankfully there are now finally some attempts to correct his vandalism
    ydoethur said:

    Germany has 79 billion passenger km of journeys to GB's 64 billion passenger km

    Which looks like a pretty good reflection of our difference in population
    ydoethur said:

    Germany has 2.01bn individual journeys compared to the UK's 1.7 billion individual journeys.

    Again reflecting our difference in population and also the fact that Germany is about 40% larger than the UK

    Which was my point. We have allowing for population difference the same number of journeys on a network half the size.

    Of course, that looks better than it is, because Germany's population is much more evenly spread across the country than ours - so a medium-sized chunk of our railways in the south-east of England, where one-third of the population lives, gets much more heavily used, while lines in the highlands of Scotland or north and mid Wales are invariably empty.
    It is interesting that since privatisation passenger numbers have more than doubled whilst at the same time we now have just about the safest rail network in the whole of Europe (for passengers and workers). The problem of course is how to increase capacity in those areas where it is most needed. This is where I think the priorities are completely wrong. We need far more capacity on the commuter routes into London and on the cross country routes in the North or England. Not only are we not addressing that, short of knocking down thousands of houses I am not sure how we can address it - at least where London is concerned.
    It is being addressed in part: just look at the London Bridge works for Thameslink, or the resiting of Rochester station. Crossrail is another massively expensive program to aid commuters, and Crossrail 2 looks increasingly likely to get the go-ahead.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,024

    Off topic: Today was meant to be my first day back at work after the Christmas break. Instead I am sat in bed drinking Lemsip and using tissues at a very rapid rate.

    At least I've got you lot for company!

    Me too!! And they say the common cold is a very mild affliction. Feel absolutely miserable!!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    murali_s said:

    Off topic: Today was meant to be my first day back at work after the Christmas break. Instead I am sat in bed drinking Lemsip and using tissues at a very rapid rate.

    At least I've got you lot for company!

    Me too!! And they say the common cold is a very mild affliction. Feel absolutely miserable!!
    Every sympathy. It’s common of course because ‘there’s a lot of it about’. Used to be said that one could treat a cold with all sorts of nostrums and one would be better in 48 hours. If you did nothing you’d be back to normal in a couple of days.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212
    murali_s said:

    Off topic: Today was meant to be my first day back at work after the Christmas break. Instead I am sat in bed drinking Lemsip and using tissues at a very rapid rate.

    At least I've got you lot for company!

    Me too!! And they say the common cold is a very mild affliction. Feel absolutely miserable!!
    Hope you both get better soon guys. Unfortunately I was down with the lurgy over Christmas and am just recovering ready to go back to work.

    Mind you mine was definitely the 'man' version.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,370
    murali_s said:

    Off topic: Today was meant to be my first day back at work after the Christmas break. Instead I am sat in bed drinking Lemsip and using tissues at a very rapid rate.

    At least I've got you lot for company!

    Me too!! And they say the common cold is a very mild affliction. Feel absolutely miserable!!
    Two upsides:

    1. I'm not as poorly as my wife was over Christmas - full-on flu with a temperature over 39C.

    2. I have avoided having to pay my inflated rail fare today.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,938
    Morning all :)

    The annual kick in the teeth for commuters to start the year - 3.4%, well above my miniscule wage rise so I'm already worse off, thank you Mrs May.

    Yet there seems no shortage of people wanting to travel and as Richard T points out, in London the issue is one of capacity at the rail heads. It has been outrageous to see the old Eurostar platforms at Waterloo left derelict and unused for years - five platforms and a nice bit of track linking Waterloo to the SE rail network all just left to rot. Would this have happened with a national rail operator ? Who knows.

    The platforms are longer at Waterloo but that's analogous to adding a lane to the M25 - it'll help for a while but it needs South Western Railway to have the carriages to use the extra platform lengths. Instead, they've embarked on a pointless dispute with the staff.

    The Underground has similar issues - the project to improve capacity at Bank won't be ready for four years so the nightly scrum down to go through the station will continue as will the periodic gate line closures both there and at many other central London stations.

    London has its capacity issues which I suspect are reflected elsewhere but we need much stronger rail services in general - trains to the west country every half hour, trains to Scotland and the North every 15 minutes. If we want to create new communities and build thousands of new homes, access to rail services will be important so new houses means new railways, new stations, new connections and new services.

    The rail system has come a long way since the dark days of the early 90s but there remains too much vulnerability to failures in infrastructure at points and signals. It's all very well having nice, modern trains which are no doubt comfortable if you can get a seat but no good if they can't go anywhere.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    Much easier, thoiugh, to drive to London (at least West London) from Gloucester than to drive from the to Aberystwyth.
    Friend of mine used to have to do a weekly commute Llanberis to Cardiff. There were long stretches, he said, where 40mph was a good speed.

    Very true, although oddly I preferred the twists and turns of the A44 to the invariable frustrations of the M4 at Reading.

    I take it for the rest of your friend's commute down the A470 20mph was a good speed? :wink:

    @Sandpit - three hours by the quickest route. Newent, Leominster, Kington is longer than Ross and Hereford but, crucially, there were never any traffic holdups.

    @murali_s get well soon mate!

    I have to go. Have a good morning.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,856

    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    If there actually is a reshuffl;e at the end of the week, and either Davis or Bojo (or both) a demoted/retired are they likely to kick up a fuss.
    Given their ‘success’ in their jobs it wouldn’t be unreasonable to fire them but would they sulk or would they cause problems? And how could May avoid the latter?

    EU Acolytes aside, most people think the Phase 1 outcome has been ok. Not clear that Davis has done a conspicuously bad job. I think he stays. BoJo is embarrassing but may be better to keep in place as he's relatively harmless where he is (yes I know that dual citizen lady in Iran has potentially suffered) but could be very destructive outside the tent. Keep him hogtied for now and dispose of him later
    Despite all the crap, phase one has gone pretty well. Our bill is pretty modest, we have the transition period we need, and the citizens' rights stuff is as expected.
    Mrs May's achievement is to create the expectation of a deal while lowering expectations of the Brexit outcome amongst Leavers. Those lower expectations will be met. She is in a pretty good situation right now.
    She's been helped by the predictions of the more ardent EU fans of the "£60bn initially, increasing every month as the City relocates to Frankfurt and the car factories shut down".
    The disadvantage of Project Fear from a Remainer point of view is that anything better than outright catastrophe counts as success. Brexit won't be a catastrophe and so will be a success on those terms. The fact it will be worse than what we had before is lost.

    BTW the actual Brexit bill might well be £60 billion. We don't know. The deal is structured so that there is no explicit upfront figure and the UK government can put whatever figure it likes on the bill without contradiction from the EU side. It naturally lowballs. The point is that the UK government put no effort into negotiating lower actual costs, which it could have done. Its interest was entirely in negotiating with its constituency.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,739
    Am I the only person bored to death by the annual complaints about train costs?

    3.4% is a bit above inflation but compared to what seems to be ever-escalating fuel costs, insurance costs etc for driving a mere 3.4% doesn't seem very significant at all.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The annual kick in the teeth for commuters to start the year - 3.4%, well above my miniscule wage rise so I'm already worse off, thank you Mrs May.

    Yet there seems no shortage of people wanting to travel and as Richard T points out, in London the issue is one of capacity at the rail heads. It has been outrageous to see the old Eurostar platforms at Waterloo left derelict and unused for years - five platforms and a nice bit of track linking Waterloo to the SE rail network all just left to rot. Would this have happened with a national rail operator ? Who knows.

    The platforms are longer at Waterloo but that's analogous to adding a lane to the M25 - it'll help for a while but it needs South Western Railway to have the carriages to use the extra platform lengths. Instead, they've embarked on a pointless dispute with the staff.

    The Underground has similar issues - the project to improve capacity at Bank won't be ready for four years so the nightly scrum down to go through the station will continue as will the periodic gate line closures both there and at many other central London stations.

    London has its capacity issues which I suspect are reflected elsewhere but we need much stronger rail services in general - trains to the west country every half hour, trains to Scotland and the North every 15 minutes. If we want to create new communities and build thousands of new homes, access to rail services will be important so new houses means new railways, new stations, new connections and new services.

    The rail system has come a long way since the dark days of the early 90s but there remains too much vulnerability to failures in infrastructure at points and signals. It's all very well having nice, modern trains which are no doubt comfortable if you can get a seat but no good if they can't go anywhere.

    Infrastructure is the responsibility of the nationalised Network Rail, which is failing in their renewals work (which is part of their bread and butter), and who are not meeting their budgetary targets. It'd be a shame if operations became nationalised and failed in a similar manner. ;)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,031
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The annual kick in the teeth for commuters to start the year - 3.4%, well above my miniscule wage rise so I'm already worse off, thank you Mrs May.

    Yet there seems no shortage of people wanting to travel and as Richard T points out, in London the issue is one of capacity at the rail heads. It has been outrageous to see the old Eurostar platforms at Waterloo left derelict and unused for years - five platforms and a nice bit of track linking Waterloo to the SE rail network all just left to rot. Would this have happened with a national rail operator ? Who knows.

    The platforms are longer at Waterloo but that's analogous to adding a lane to the M25 - it'll help for a while but it needs South Western Railway to have the carriages to use the extra platform lengths. Instead, they've embarked on a pointless dispute with the staff.

    The Underground has similar issues - the project to improve capacity at Bank won't be ready for four years so the nightly scrum down to go through the station will continue as will the periodic gate line closures both there and at many other central London stations.

    London has its capacity issues which I suspect are reflected elsewhere but we need much stronger rail services in general - trains to the west country every half hour, trains to Scotland and the North every 15 minutes. If we want to create new communities and build thousands of new homes, access to rail services will be important so new houses means new railways, new stations, new connections and new services.

    The rail system has come a long way since the dark days of the early 90s but there remains too much vulnerability to failures in infrastructure at points and signals. It's all very well having nice, modern trains which are no doubt comfortable if you can get a seat but no good if they can't go anywhere.

    Lots of people not getting any pay rise and have not had any for years. It is a joke. Only Execs are immune from it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258

    Am I the only person bored to death by the annual complaints about train costs?

    3.4% is a bit above inflation but compared to what seems to be ever-escalating fuel costs, insurance costs etc for driving a mere 3.4% doesn't seem very significant at all.

    Yep. The alternatives are to either not have the services, or to put the costs on general taxation (i.e. the rest of us).

    Essentially what they (the commuters) want is for the rest of us to pay for their lifestyle choice. ;)

    (runs for cover)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,739
    stodge said:

    The rail system has come a long way since the dark days of the early 90s ...

    Gee I wonder if anything significant changed since the early 90s ... ;)

  • houndtanghoundtang Posts: 182
    edited January 2
    ydoethur said:

    It's interesting to reflect how few members of Cameron's 2010 cabinet are left.

    I can think of Hunt, Hammond and May, but off-hand I can't think of any others.

    It's even more surprising given how few major reshuffles there have been (three, I think) although of course there were a total of six Liberal Democrat ministers in the coalition years.

    Gove and Fox are still there though both had gaps in service
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,739

    Am I the only person bored to death by the annual complaints about train costs?

    3.4% is a bit above inflation but compared to what seems to be ever-escalating fuel costs, insurance costs etc for driving a mere 3.4% doesn't seem very significant at all.

    Yep. The alternatives are to either not have the services, or to put the costs on general taxation (i.e. the rest of us).

    Essentially what they (the commuters) want is for the rest of us to pay for their lifestyle choice. ;)

    (runs for cover)
    I don't see why you should run to cover I'll outright say it.

    Train services are still subsidised by billions a year while the reason petrol is so exhorbitantly expensive is due to taxation. Cross the Atlantic and fuel costs less than half what it does here due to the reduced tax burden.

    If train commuters think they're hard done by, just imagine if we abolished rail subsidies and fuel duty altogether.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,941

    Am I the only person bored to death by the annual complaints about train costs?

    3.4% is a bit above inflation but compared to what seems to be ever-escalating fuel costs, insurance costs etc for driving a mere 3.4% doesn't seem very significant at all.

    Plus the huge wages paid to the unionised staff.

    Shedding a tear for those paying £7k to save £500k on their house - boo hoo.


  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,370

    stodge said:

    The rail system has come a long way since the dark days of the early 90s ...

    Gee I wonder if anything significant changed since the early 90s ... ;)

    Yes - the amount of public funding of the railways has increased significantly.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,856

    Am I the only person bored to death by the annual complaints about train costs?

    3.4% is a bit above inflation but compared to what seems to be ever-escalating fuel costs, insurance costs etc for driving a mere 3.4% doesn't seem very significant at all.

    Most advanced countries subsidise transport costs. Given we all do so, the question is whether the UK subsidies work better or worse than other countries in the round.

    Most season tickets are bought by commuters to London. I wonder how much the high ticket prices are the other side of the coin from the very accommodation costs in London. Are ticket prices higher in the UK than Germany in part because people are travelling further to get affordable housing?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,739
    FF43 said:

    Am I the only person bored to death by the annual complaints about train costs?

    3.4% is a bit above inflation but compared to what seems to be ever-escalating fuel costs, insurance costs etc for driving a mere 3.4% doesn't seem very significant at all.

    Most advanced countries subsidise transport costs. Given we all do so, the question is whether the UK subsidies work better or worse than other countries in the round.

    Most season tickets are bought by commuters to London. I wonder how much the high ticket prices are the other side of the coin from the very accommodation costs in London. Are ticket prices higher in the UK than Germany in part because people are travelling further to get affordable housing?
    "Subsidise transport costs"? How much is fuel being subsidised by?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,938

    Am I the only person bored to death by the annual complaints about train costs?

    3.4% is a bit above inflation but compared to what seems to be ever-escalating fuel costs, insurance costs etc for driving a mere 3.4% doesn't seem very significant at all.

    Am I the only person bored to death by the annual complaints from people bored by those complaining about train fare rises ?

    Yes and I don't care.

    I drive a car as well and I'm well aware how much of every litre of fuel is covered by taxation and then I consider who mends the roads - Highways England, now, who owns Highways England, aren't they the same as Network Rail ? Local authority highway departments - a really successful history of partnership with Amey, Carillion and the like (giggle).

    Drivers have plenty to complain about too but you seem more interested in having a pop at train travellers - how has the price of petrol moved against inflation since 1990 ? As for insurance, wholeheartedly agree, what are we going to do about it ?
  • Am I the only person bored to death by the annual complaints about train costs?

    3.4% is a bit above inflation but compared to what seems to be ever-escalating fuel costs, insurance costs etc for driving a mere 3.4% doesn't seem very significant at all.

    As the voice of Northern rail commuter, it bugs me no end, my season ticket already costs £550 a month for my season ticket, and yet we're denied improvements but the government will cancel the Northern electrification plans but will spend billions on HS2 and other London improvements.

    IIRC for every pound the government spends on transport in the desolate North, they spend six pounds.

    All those price increases for an increasingly worse service oop North.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,853
    edited January 2

    stodge said:

    The rail system has come a long way since the dark days of the early 90s ...

    Gee I wonder if anything significant changed since the early 90s ... ;)

    Yes - the amount of public funding of the railways has increased significantly.
    Only if you choose to ignore that passengers have doubled. Per passenger it is far less than it used to be.

    image
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,370

    FF43 said:

    Am I the only person bored to death by the annual complaints about train costs?

    3.4% is a bit above inflation but compared to what seems to be ever-escalating fuel costs, insurance costs etc for driving a mere 3.4% doesn't seem very significant at all.

    Most advanced countries subsidise transport costs. Given we all do so, the question is whether the UK subsidies work better or worse than other countries in the round.

    Most season tickets are bought by commuters to London. I wonder how much the high ticket prices are the other side of the coin from the very accommodation costs in London. Are ticket prices higher in the UK than Germany in part because people are travelling further to get affordable housing?
    "Subsidise transport costs"? How much is fuel being subsidised by?
    Pay the true social costs resulting from the CO2 and other emissions, plus noise, death and injury resulting from motoring and it would be a darn sight more expensive than it is today.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,739
    stodge said:

    Am I the only person bored to death by the annual complaints about train costs?

    3.4% is a bit above inflation but compared to what seems to be ever-escalating fuel costs, insurance costs etc for driving a mere 3.4% doesn't seem very significant at all.

    Am I the only person bored to death by the annual complaints from people bored by those complaining about train fare rises ?

    Yes and I don't care.

    I drive a car as well and I'm well aware how much of every litre of fuel is covered by taxation and then I consider who mends the roads - Highways England, now, who owns Highways England, aren't they the same as Network Rail ? Local authority highway departments - a really successful history of partnership with Amey, Carillion and the like (giggle).

    Drivers have plenty to complain about too but you seem more interested in having a pop at train travellers - how has the price of petrol moved against inflation since 1990 ? As for insurance, wholeheartedly agree, what are we going to do about it ?
    I'm not interested in having a pop at train travellers - but I'm not interested in seeing my taxes go up even further to subsidise those making an already subsidised and relatively cheap choice.

    Of course the roads get mended by Highways England etc but with 69.54 pence in every litre of fuel being fuel duty (inc VAT on fuel duty) without even considering VAT on the actual cost of fuel, Vehicle Excise Duty etc I think it's safe to say the government is making a vast profit on drivers.
  • The government can find £15 billion for Crossrail but not a few million for electrification in the North.

    Bring back the Northern Powerhouse.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 312
    I've said it before, but the Government needs to do far more to encourage home working, basically by making it a right unless the nature of the job specifically prevents it. That would:

    - raise productivity, since convincing evidence shows that people are more productive at home (except those with young kids)
    - reduce crowding in public transport
    - even out housing demand
    - promote general happiness, since people who work from home have higher morale.

    It is 2018 now, offices are mostly out of date.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,785
    Dura_Ace said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    I suspect the stalemate will indeed continue, although a conspicuously good/bad turn of events might shift things.

    Odd Corbyn's so quiet on Iran. He used to love talking about it:

    You forgot the IRA and Venezuela too. These are the silver bullets with which the bearded lycanthrope may be slain.
    'Silver bullet system working well, send more bullets.'
This discussion has been closed.