As was said on the media a number of years we have both the most expensive and cheapest fares in Europe. For instance if I was going to London in the rush hour from Ipswich it would cost me £51 return. But this weekend I'm getting a return to London for £18 then a return to Portsmouth for £2. Given the distance it would cost me @£40 in petrol alone not counting wear and tear on the car and the stress of driving round London.
Chris
No, it's not in the interests of those who want to be at the top of the pyramid...
Indeed. If /everyone/ in the system has their fingers in the pie, there is little incentive for someone to rock the boat. If me and my mates have got our own brown envelopes, we aren't really going to be able to tell the press that you have yours in the hope of public outrage dislodging you.
For all the faults of our yah-boo system, our corruption is pretty tame and technical, and often as not complaints are as much about simply disagreeing as about actual corruption.
"Chris" wrote
Ah yes, but if there were four of you in that car, the cost per person would be far less than the cost of rail travel.
John.
But he would miss out on the happy smiling eager to please rail staff.
No mode is ever going to cater for everything.
If there were 40 of you, hiring a bus might make sense. If you were starting in Belfast, flying might be a better. Trains aren't at their best moving groups of four people door to door, but then cars aren't especially good at moving lots of individual people into cramped city centres all at once, and back again later on. Buses are good at getting to the back of beyond, but not good at doing it quickly or comfortably. Planes are fast over water, but rubbish at getting people on and off at each end.
"Arthur Figgis" wrote
Indeed, but the car seems to make more sense, most of the time - except when the motorcycle is better! ;-)
John.
FPTP and PR (as in NZ) are just 2 forms of electing representatives - another method is the Preferential System (as in Aust) where the member is not elected until they have minimum 50% of the vote. Same dog, different leg action perhaps? :)
Steve
In general the electorate know who will be PM before a general election and can make a choice. Do you think Labour would have won the last election if GB were in line for the job immediately rather than some vague promise?
MBQ
If I remember correctly, it was felt that Labour won the last election because Gordon Brown was waiting in the wings to take over from Tony Blair.
I get the feeling that if the Tories win the next election then Mr Cameron will have done his job and will be promoted sideways to let the preferred leader take over. Me, cynical? :-) Just remember that the Tories have the most experience at shafting their leaders. :-)
Jim.
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 07:47:57 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com" said in :
Why pick on NZ? As far as I recall last time I checked Europe had only two countries which did not use some form of PR, the UK and Liechtenstein. I believe Liechtenstein has since changed.
The idea that polling 40% of those who bother to vote in some way entitles a party to an absolute majority in Parliament seems to me to be absurd.
Guy
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:22:29 +0100, Chris said in :
My Gold Card gets me all kinds of discounts and deals. And it only cost me £3,300 - bargain! Not.
Guy
How then do you explain that the Beaching report was created for a Conservative government and most of the closures occurred under a Labour government. The only constant is the civil service. And railway privatisation was a treasury wheeze to reduce the amount of money that was paid out to the railways that has badly backfired. Look at the mess DfT is making of the railways since the demise of the SRA.
Chris
A lot of TOCs do group save fares for 4 travelling together to get round that exact point. For the Portsmouth example the train is still cheaper for 4 than a car.
Chris
A a lot of councils will also sell Senior Railcards at a discount to station price certainly for him in Norwich.
Chris
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:26:18 +0100, Chris said in :
Nah, it was an ideology-driven plan deliberately designed to prevent renationalisation.
Guy
How about just selling the ticket at that lower fare, without the need for the customer to having to buy a discount card first...
Every single closure had to be approved by the Sectary of State for Transport - the civil service nor BR could do nothing without that approval/signature. The fact that most of the closures, and lets not forget the number of lines that were kept, was an accident of history - the Tories not being re elected in '64. But lets not forget the fact, it was the Tories how appointed Beaching...
news:uk.tv-programmes.Jackanory is that away ===>>>
No disrespect intended, but that sounds straight out of tots early reading books :- trains are good at ....
CHeers, Simon
That is precisely what is was designed to be, together with a way to maximise the income to the exchequer [1] - hence the fragmentation and the shear number of TOCs - IIRC all transport experts how advised the government at the time wanted the 'regions' [2] to become 'complete railways', much like the old 'Big Four', with both freight and passenger carrying responsibilities.
[1] no doubt so that they could offer tax bribes just before the next election [2] Western, LMR, ER, Southern, ScottishHave something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required