The phrase “traditional working class” should not be used in the same breath as references to the current Tory government, and their policies, of course. They’re about as far away from that as it’s possible to get.
What proportion of the roads do you think that amounts to? As much as 5%?There are many, many others - Farringdon Road for example has been reduced to 1 lane rather than 1 lane and 1 bus lane. Parts of Euston Road have been narrowed. Notting Hill Gate's another. I believe parts of the A40 have as well.
Speeds have never been high in central London - even as far back as the 1930s, but there is no effort to improve it.
Sunakism doesn't exist, he's done nothing of his own mind (not necessarily his own fault, he was handed a house on fire). The government ideology is best summed up as a Bully's playground, courtesy of Boris.but Sunakism (if that's a word) is nothing like Thatcherism.
You again miss the wider economic impact that rail makes, which goes well beyond those who actually use it. Billions will continue to be spent on it whether you like it or not, because no political party is delusional enough to think that not subsidising the railway would be in anyway acceptable.
Well that might be your view, but it isn’t how the system works. I don’t want to have to pay for your kids’ state education or your NHS costs, yet I still have to. Being a “net contributor”, or not, is neither here nor there.
It was discussed on another thread, and the consensus appeared to be that closing individual lines won’t realise significant savings - hence many of is would favour preserving them and looking to grow passenger numbers. The cost is tiny in the scheme of things, and once the infrastructure is gone it is lost forever - many lines in the Southeast closed during the beaching era would doubtless be very well used now.
You also singularly fail to acknowledge the fact that government policy towards the railway: prolonging the industrial dispute; insisting on service cuts; failing to allow fares reform may well be costing more in terms of subsidy. It’s fine to agree with their stance for ideological reasons, but you can’t legitimately claim it is rooted in any concern about public money. That is as dishonest as they what the government is currently doing: dressing up an anti state, anti public service political agenda as concern for fiscal prudence.
Many of us will question why, when taxes are already high, the government can afford to abolish the lifetime pension allowance. That is also not fiscally prudent, it’s being done purely to appeal to their voter base.
This is simply factually incorrect when viewed as a % of government spending.
I completely agree. The present "Tory" Government is not in fact a Tory, or Conservative, one, it's a curiously self-serving, high tax, populist right-wing one which has more in common with e.g. UKIP than Thatcherism or even traditional Conservatism.
I can see why some traditional working-class went for Thatcherism, with its promise of home and car ownership and more of your own money to spend, but Sunakism (if that's a word) is nothing like Thatcherism.
Sunakism doesn't exist, he's done nothing of his own mind (not necessarily his own fault, he was handed a house on fire). The government ideology is best summed up as a Bully's playground, courtesy of Boris.
On your example on reviewing services, evidently that late service needs to be there to allow you to get home and without it you wouldn’t have been able to travel at all. There will always be some lesser used services but they’re important for mobility for non car users and to make rail an attractive and flexible option.I really don't - which is why I've said several times focusing the railways on freight makes alot of sense. Carting fresh air around rural parts of the UK really doesn't.
And I don't sense an appetite from any of the major political parties to spend more on the rail network. Labour want to "renationalise" it, whatever that may look like, but have failed to explain why that's beneficial, who benefits and how they'll contain the costs. After all, the already nationalised bit of the rail network, Network Rail, isn't exactly known for its cost efficiency or on time, on budget delivery of major projects.
Or to put it another way - you're paying for your own healthcare and education - and its eminently possible you haven't yet covered those costs.
The South East lost relatively few lines to Beeching - and quite alot of those which people claim were Beeching of course closed long before his report or in the years after his departure so were BR initiated.
On the second point - the industrial dispute, ironically, is keeping costs down, as people on strike don't get paid. And if passengers are travelling using air, coach or car, then they'll be contributing to the exchequer via the various taxes those forms of transport attract.
There is clearly a case for reviewing services - I gave this example elsewhere quite recently - I went to Nuneaton from Northampton where I live for a meal on a Friday night. Both trains up (change at Rugby) were fairly full having originated in the London evening peak. The return (last train from Nuneaton and one of the last from Rugby to Northampton) were a different matter. The Nuneaton train had a handful of people on it. The Northampton train (ex Birmingham) was barely 1/4 full when it arrived at Rugby. Now, whilst there may be some case about ensuring trains end their day at certain places etc - is carting around fresh air like that a good use of resource ? What if the last train had been an hour earlier ? Or replaced by a bus at much lower cost ?
The biggest proponents for that change were the British Medical Association who were arguing that the effect of the current restrictions meant doctors were retiring from NHS service.
And addressing that couldn't be limited to just the public sector - the public sector already get massively preferential pension schemes whereas private sector pensions were pillaged by Gordon Brown.
Set against total government spending, no doubt. But lets narrow it down and look at transport spending. As slide 5 points out "Most of DfT’s budget is for the railways, and Network Rail in particular" https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons/scrutiny/dft-slides-me2021-22.pdf
Rail spending dwarfs spending on pretty much every other form of transport spending.
Not sure how high tax and high spending have somehow become "right wing"......
On your example on reviewing services, evidently that late service needs to be there to allow you to get home and without it you wouldn’t have been able to travel at all. There will always be some lesser used services but they’re important for mobility for non car users and to make rail an attractive and flexible option.
Sunak isn't in control of the party. Look a the ongoing Natcon conference - the idea that the home secretary would be speaking at a splinter group like that would have been unthinkable under Cameron.Yes and no. Sunak appears to be to the right of Boris. (The whole thing is quite curious - a Government with a load of ministers who are children of relatively recent immigrants enacting policies that would have stopped their own parents coming here).
That's opex. Most opex on the roads is paid for by private people. Not only that but also covid was still a thing, so the railways were being heavily supportedSet against total government spending, no doubt. But lets narrow it down and look at transport spending. As slide 5 points out "Most of DfT’s budget is for the railways, and Network Rail in particular" https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons/scrutiny/dft-slides-me2021-22.pdf
You're right, the railways aren't free - they're bloody expensive for the taxpayer, the vast majority of whom don't regularly use them. Which is why comparisons with the NHS or Education are invalid because those are things the majority of people use.
Harlow Town station is on the northern edge of the town, there is nothing but countryside to the north and it is a long way from most of the housing areas, especially the southern part of the town. Similarly Hemel Hempstead station is on the southern edge of the town with nothing much to the south of it. Commuting was not considered to be important when the New Towns were developed, which is why Basildon didn't have a station at all.But if commuting is the purpose of these stations - which it is - then its proximity to the town centre is pretty irrelevant. More relevant is its proximity to the housing areas where people live.
And that's not unique to 'New Towns' - @zwk500 has cited Hitchin - Hitchin station is a distance away from the town centre and always has been.
This is an even sillier statement. The idea that everybody in the country makes 22 trips by rail every year is laughable. The vast majority of people don't get on a train from one years end to the next. You cannot take rail journeys and divide by the population figure. Some people use trains every day, most don't use trains at all.This is a silly statement. A quick Google search shows that on average there a 10 contacts with the NHS per person per year. There's 22 trips by rail per person per year. A majority of people use the railways within any given year. A majority of people don't use education in any given year. Plenty of people go long periods without using the NHS too while some people have contact every day.
Of course nearly everbody will use state education or the NHS during there lives. I'd be pretty shocked though if the % of people in the UK who use the rail network within their life time isn't also in the high 90s. This is before we go into indirect impacts. My mum doesn't use rail often but as I don't drive she'd likely have to travel more to see me or see me less if there was no rail network. So there is a personal benefit to her even if it's indirect. Its also a proven fact that people who don't use the rail network derive a benefit from the railway being available should they need to use it for whatever reason.
Sunak isn't in control of the party. Look a the ongoing Natcon conference - the idea that the home secretary would be speaking at a splinter group like that would have been unthinkable under Cameron.
Yes and no. Sunak appears to be to the right of Boris. (The whole thing is quite curious - a Government with a load of ministers who are children of relatively recent immigrants enacting policies that would have stopped their own parents coming here).
This is a silly statement. A quick Google search shows that on average there a 10 contacts with the NHS per person per year. There's 22 trips by rail per person per year. A majority of people use the railways within any given year. A majority of people don't use education in any given year. Plenty of people go long periods without using the NHS too while some people have contact every day.
Of course nearly everbody will use state education or the NHS during there lives. I'd be pretty shocked though if the % of people in the UK who use the rail network within their life time isn't also in the high 90s. This is before we go into indirect impacts. My mum doesn't use rail often but as I don't drive she'd likely have to travel more to see me or see me less if there was no rail network. So there is a personal benefit to her even if it's indirect. Its also a proven fact that people who don't use the rail network derive a benefit from the railway being available should they need to use it for whatever reason.
On your example on reviewing services, evidently that late service needs to be there to allow you to get home and without it you wouldn’t have been able to travel at all. There will always be some lesser used services but they’re important for mobility for non car users and to make rail an attractive and flexible option.
Harlow Town station is on the northern edge of the town, there is nothing but countryside to the north and it is a long way from most of the housing areas, especially the southern part of the town. Similarly Hemel Hempstead station is on the southern edge of the town with nothing much to the south of it. Commuting was not considered to be important when the New Towns were developed, which is why Basildon didn't have a station at all.
This is an even sillier statement. The idea that everybody in the country makes 22 trips by rail every year is laughable. The vast majority of people don't get on a train from one years end to the next. You cannot take rail journeys and divide by the population figure. Some people use trains every day, most don't use trains at all.
This will result in more car journeys, with a detrimental environmental impact, and limiting of mobility for folks who can’t drive. Removing late trains may increase drink driving too as people have no other option for getting home. Remember that public transport is a public service too and while it does benefit the environment, that is not its sole purpose.The reality is carting fresh air around isn't good for the environment, however it's done. So trains which are less than 30% full should be reviewed. And if that means curtailing services earlier that's a reasonable compromise.
This will result in more car journeys, with a detrimental environmental impact, and limiting of mobility for folks who can’t drive. Removing late trains may increase drink driving too as people have no other option for getting home. Remember that public transport is a public service too and while it does benefit the environment, that is not its sole purpose.
This will result in more car journeys, with a detrimental environmental impact, and limiting of mobility for folks who can’t drive. Removing late trains may increase drink driving too as people have no other option for getting home. Remember that public transport is a public service too and while it does benefit the environment, that is not its sole purpose.
You'll need to provide figures for that to see what basis those figures for the NHS are on. Because the reality is if you have a repeat prescription, you are using the NHS every time you collect one, if you have a dental check up and it's an NHS dentist, you're using the NHS.
On Education - I hope you spent at least 10 years of your life in full time education - therefore you have already used the education system significantly by the time you reach adulthood
Bit in bold - Oh, not this again.....
If you can afford to go out and get drunk, you can afford to get a taxi home.
The vast majority of people who go out drinking do so locally i.e. in the town they live in, so the train is an irrelevance in most cases.
Coming back to the question what would the UK look like without railways, some american cities provide a very good idea of what it'd be like. There'd be far more congestion and longer journey times and more land take. Public transport would likely be more difficult to use and therfore only used by those who have no other choices. Having been to LA and Las Vegas and done the majority of a trip without a car and say for certain that the UK is better with a rail network. Using public transport in LA was an uncomfortable experience and involved incredibly long journey times due to the sheer distances created by wide roads.
Given that you live in the South East you must surely be familiar with the fact that going into London to do things involving the consumption of alcohol is a very common practice engaged in by tens of thousands of people every Saturday evening (at least) in particular.
A taxi from Euston to Northampton must run at well over two hundred quid, so I think this is just fallacious.
Milton Keynes does too. It has the WCML, but it's mostly used for long distance travel and not inbound commuting. Almost all travel in, to and around MK is done by car, taxi or bicycle; the bus service is poor and very lightly used, and has appalling coverage.
The *vast majority* of people who go drinking do so locally, so stop bringing edge cases up which in the greater scheme of things are irrelevant.
Yes, there are people who go into London to meet up and have a few drinks - though in that case they might just as well stay in a Travelodge over night and not have to worry about getting the late train back. And the bigger risk is they'll drive back from the station when over the limit.
Judging by the post 22:00 trains out of Euston, going into London for drinks is not an edge case by any stretch of the imagination, and very few people are going to consider paying for a travelodge for a few drinks in the evenings.The *vast majority* of people who go drinking do so locally, so stop bringing edge cases up which in the greater scheme of things are irrelevant.
Yes, there are people who go into London to meet up and have a few drinks - though in that case they might just as well stay in a Travelodge over night and not have to worry about getting the late train back.
Yes.And the bigger risk is they'll drive back from the station when over the limit.
Pre-covid the figure was ~60% of the population use a train at least once a year, so the majority do have some level of interaction with the rail network.This is an even sillier statement. The idea that everybody in the country makes 22 trips by rail every year is laughable. The vast majority of people don't get on a train from one years end to the next. You cannot take rail journeys and divide by the population figure. Some people use trains every day, most don't use trains at all.
Judging by the post 22:00 trains out of Euston, going into London for drinks is not an edge case by any stretch of the imagination, and very few people are going to consider paying for a travelodge for a few drinks in the evenings.
being a non driver I have previously been limited in things I can attend due to the lack of late night trains.Though to be fair @A0wen does have a *slight* point in that if the last train was say 2210 instead of 0010, people would just go out earlier. It would prevent other things like evening theatre trips though.
Things like theatre/cinema trips are incredibly important to a decent section of the entry-level economy. Especially with London capacities and volume of shows, the number of people having dinner and then going for a show then staying for a drink are very important to the hospitality sector, which is where the majority of people get their starts in their careers.Though to be fair @A0wen does have a *slight* point in that if the last train was say 2210 instead of 0010, people would just go out earlier. It would prevent other things like evening theatre trips though.
I suspect lots wouldn't bother if the last train was so early... That also ignores people who work in the eveningsThough to be fair @A0wen does have a *slight* point in that if the last train was say 2210 instead of 0010, people would just go out earlier. It would prevent other things like evening theatre trips though.
I suspect lots wouldn't bother if the last train was so early...
That also ignores people who work in the evenings
Whereas the opposite is certain to destroy the world. Be careful what you wish for.A commitment to radical green policies (which strangely enough always seem to involve radical socialism) is likely to completely destroy the economy,
Whereas the opposite is certain to destroy the world. Be careful what you wish for.
Things like theatre/cinema trips are incredibly important to a decent section of the entry-level economy. Especially with London capacities and volume of shows, the number of people having dinner and then going for a show then staying for a drink are very important to the hospitality sector, which is where the majority of people get their starts in their careers.
If you're travelling more than an hour, people will often opt for a matinee show rather than an evening one, not least because if the show finishes at 10, you've then got to get to whichever terminus you're heading back from - and if we look at the WCML from Euston then the journeys are incredibly slow - the 2237 from Euston to Northampton takes almost 90 minutes getting you back into Northampton after mid-night. It's much easier to have a matinee show, go for a meal afterwards and then get a train about 9pm.