Another Cameron U-Turn... High Earners to keep Chid benefit

[kaosmark2]

So not all fine

[kaosmark2]

50% of NHS beds can now go to private patients...

To be honest if people really want me being at the front of queue for those beds... Im all for it really...

I actually already have private healthcare via my wife's company anyway

[feral chile]

I mean I don't see them linked, like a universal benefit being cut and then being asked to pay for my bin being emptied by a private contractor on top of my council tax even though I could afford it.. I pay tax and expect certain services in return. Benefits I see as something different, a safety net for the most vunerable

[lost]

Public transport and gas and electricity used to be classed as public services. it's a bit of a movable feast.

Edited January 14, 2012 by lost

[kaosmark2]

Public transport and gas and electricity used to be classed as public services. it's a bit of a movable feast.

[feral chile]

Thast not a benefit being got rid of though its a service thats been privatized,

I may believe the benefits are there for the neediest.. I may also believe the private sector would do a better job running the grid but believing the first doesn’t lead to believing the second.

[feral chile]

Fact is British rail for example used to have terrible reliability... Only something like 70% arrived on time... Now it's more like 90%+

So it's not all bad....

[kaosmark2]

Fact is British rail for example used to have terrible reliability... Only something like 70% arrived on time... Now it's more like 90%+

So it's not all bad....

[kaosmark2]

As for car being cheaper... I doubt that if you include servicing, insurance, purchase price, tax etc etc... Even whe I was doing Warrington to Salfrod it still worked out cheaper... And that was a combination of train, bus and metro link...

[eFestivals]

Fact is British rail for example used to have terrible reliability... Only something like 70% arrived on time... Now it's more like 90%+

So it's not all bad....

the private companies are fiddling the stats - that's the ONLY reason for the supposed improvements.

Train jouneys are now timetabled so that the trains are slower than they were 100 years ago. The trains travel at the same speed, the difference comes with how long they stop at stations so they're more often 'on time'.

And along with all that, the privatised rail service cost FAR more (after adjustment for inflatiuon, etc) in subsidies than BR ever did.

It's ALL bad.

[MrZigster]

And, don't these "private" rail companies still get millions each year from the public coffers to keep the rails fit for use? There are some very dodgy accounting shenanigans going on somewhere with that lot. Something Private Eye are always going on about.

Kaos is spot on about transport in the South. Any gig in London from where we are the car will win the cost and convenience question every time. 2 people and split the petrol was just over 50% each of the equivalent rail fair the last time we did it I think. Plus the last train home runs stupidly early and its often a question of miss your train or miss the encore.

[kaosmark2]

What I want most from the train service is constancy.... Pick me up on time and drop me off on time... The exact travel time isn't a big concern... So as long as they do that I am happy.

I must say I have never really noticed the trains stopping for a long time on my journeys.... Its usually doors open, everyone off, everyone on, off we go... with little time wasted it seems...

Some prices take the piss... Others are really good value...

[kaosmark2]

You say most. But dont you mean yours

[kaosmark2]

We must be really luckily in the north west... Like mega lucky I suppose...

[abdoujaparov]

Southwest, Southeast, the central area of the south. West Midlands. South->NE journeys.

[kaosmark2]

I use the east coast main line 2-3 times a week, from Lincolnshire to London. The service is generally good, serious delays are pretty rare (I can think of maybe 4 or 5 catastrophically bad delays, I mean 2-3 hours, in the last 4 years).

Fares are, however, generally too high....but that's a direct result of the government deciding to wind down public subsidy of the railways....

[abdoujaparov]

To be fair, the only place I ever travel to/from in the West Midlands is Loughborough, but getting ANYWHERE from there is a nightmare. Cancellations, multiple changes to get to places nearby, high cost, running late. Every problem possible comes up all the time.

[kaosmark2]

that's because they dont want anyone leaving Loughborough for fear that they might contaminate the gene pool elsewhere

[TalkShow Bob]

I use the east coast main line 2-3 times a week, from Lincolnshire to London. The service is generally good, serious delays are pretty rare (I can think of maybe 4 or 5 catastrophically bad delays, I mean 2-3 hours, in the last 4 years).

Fares are, however, generally too high....but that's a direct result of the government deciding to wind down public subsidy of the railways....

[abdoujaparov]

That'd explain Cornwall, Essex and Norfolk as well.

[abdoujaparov]

No its not - subserdys to rail providers are higher than they ever have been. Its due to a concerted government policy to price people off the railways. No joke or conspiracy theory its an offical policy to price people out of rail travel, they dont seem to want to put the substantual capital investment to up the capacity so they are shooting prices up to get numbers down.

[kaosmark2]

Not a bad move really!!!

No longer will have to suffer Special Brew swearing idiots

[TalkShow Bob]

Sorry, you're wrong. One of the announcements in the last Comprehensive Spending Review was a tapered reduction in public subsidy for the railways, with an increase in fares (in the government's words) to maintain operating companies' revenues and thereby maintain capital investment. This may have the effect of pricing people off the railways, but this is absolutely not the official, public, policy. (I'm sure that we might have noticed some headlines if the government had said "there's too many plebs on the railway...our policy is to increase rail fares to keep the unwashed off of trains")

Edited January 16, 2012 by TalkShow Bob

[kaosmark2]

I must have missed that in the last review. It was privously policy, and there were headlines. Train operators arnt alowed to push for major changes to infrastrucutre to alow carrage of more passingers (eg longer platforms) because railtrack and the government wouldnt stump up the large capital outlay so the only over option to reduce passanger numbers to keep pushing up prices. The most obviouse case of this is peak fair creep - you now cant leave London Paddington on an intercity untill about 8 without paying for a more expensive ticket.

Even if they have started reducing subserdys were still at a higher point than we were under BR.