Scotrail

[Abdul_Latif]

52 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Train strikes: Why haven't they caused more disruption? - BBC News

I think this is quite an interesting angle.

The pandemic has already shown businesses and employees that they can work from home so any disruption like this and most people can immediately move to work from home without batting an eyelid.

Will be interesting to see how and if that affects pay rise negotiations.

Maybe the days of unions holding the public to ransom are coming to an end.

No doubt they'll get a pay-rise above that offered but maybe it's a case of them winning the battle but losing the war.

We're a service economy now and a service economy can largely work from home.

Cheap manufacturing from abroad killed our grossly inefficient manufacturing base and neutered their unions in the 80s.
Maybe work from home will do the same for transport.

That’s an interesting take on it. The rail industry may well become one catering purely to travel and leisure rather than commuting.

It could well be a blessing as the infrastructure is fucked, but if numbers drop due to a different type of usage it may just hold up.

[Left Back]

5 minutes ago, Abdul_Latif said:

That’s an interesting take on it. The rail industry may well become one catering purely to travel and leisure rather than commuting.

It could well be a blessing as the infrastructure is fucked, but if numbers drop due to a different type of usage it may just hold up.

Doubtful.  Commuters subsidise the ticket costs for all other rail travel.

[Abdul_Latif]

6 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Doubtful.  Commuters subsidise the ticket costs for all other rail travel.

A fair call, but the whole thing would need a rethink if it came to pass. Higher fares, but a more luxury service for example. Something more like Eurostar being the standard and little in the way of short journeys.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Abdul_Latif

[Granny Danger]

2 hours ago, hk blues said:

We could go in in this vein all night but pensions are not being increased in line with inflation, rather in line with the triple lock which has been in place since 2010.

F*** the government rather than f*** the pensioners IMO.  

It’s classic Tory divide and rule, favour (say) pensioners at the expense of (say) students and the two groups blame each other than blaming the Tories.  It should be note that the U.K. state pension is amongst the worst in Europe in terms of amount and retirement age.

[TheScarf]

I like how the Tory’s de facto reply to every inconvenience to the public is ‘think of are brave boys and the veterans’!

Absolutely obsessed with war and killing dirty foreigners that lot. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

7 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

I like how the Tory’s de facto reply to every inconvenience to the public is ‘think of are brave boys and the veterans’!

Absolutely obsessed with war and killing dirty foreigners that lot. 

Aye that wee backbencher p***k getting absolutely rinsed by Lynch was fantastic viewing. Gave up any form of debates just mewled about veterans. 

[TheScarf]

Just now, Day of the Lords said:

Aye that wee backbencher p***k getting absolutely rinsed by Lynch was fantastic viewing. Gave up any form of debates just mewled about veterans. 

Backbench Tory MPs are seemingly just told to memorise 10-15 sound bites and are then wheeled out to get rinsed daily on tv by people who know what they’re talking about. 

[SuperSaints1877]

52 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

I like how the Tory’s de facto reply to every inconvenience to the public is ‘think of are brave boys and the veterans’!

Absolutely obsessed with war and killing dirty foreigners that lot. 

Unless the veterans are Gurkhas which is completely different issue. Disgraceful the way they and many others like them have been treated whilst following British orders.

[Blue Brazil Forever]

3 hours ago, Michael W said:

I have already outlined this, but here it is again: 

Government: Workers, restrain your pay demands. Don't ask for rises in line with inflation. This is bad. 

Also Government: Pensions will be increased in line with inflation. This is fine.

My frustration here is with the inconsistency coming out of Government. 

Apart from suspending the triple lock this year;  my wife and I both receive the age addition (25p) each week. We try not to spend it all at once. Oh and it's taxable.

[Empty It]

It should be note that the U.K. state pension is amongst the worst in Europe in terms of amount and retirement age.

Maybe the auld b*****ds should stop voting them in every election then.

[VincentGuerin]

16 hours ago, IrishBhoy said:

It’s funny how the government is always punching down when it comes to finding reasons why the country is in debt or why public services are failing. Immigrants and the working class fighting for better wages taking the brunt of it just now. The media are absolutely complicit in trying to devalue the RMT and the working classes right now. I hope Mick Lynch doesn’t have any skeletons in the closet because you can be assured they will be doing everything they can to find something on him, especially after how well he has handled himself these past few days. 
 

Why are these same journalists who are trying to skewer Mick Lynch not asking the Tory MPs that appear on television why they aren’t trying to close tax loopholes or making it harder to hide money offshore? Something that could literally recoup billions of pounds overnight. The divide in the UK between the have and have-nots is a chasm, and it’s only getting bigger during this ‘cost of living crisis’. A rail worker who makes 30 grand a year will be paying 15-20% of that back to the Govt. in PAYE at source. They will be paying council tax, electricity and energy bills and buying food, petrol, alcohol, cigarettes etc., a percentage of all which will find it’s way back into Govt. coffers.
Compare that to the millionaires who can afford the best accountants, who hold positions as directors of limited companies that, on paper, don’t turn a profit so don’t need to pay tax. Who use dividends and ‘loans’ as their wage, who ‘hire’ family members as staff to give them higher tax thresholds, who will have money in long term investment funds or property ventures that stays far enough away from the eyes of HMRC that hardly a penny of tax will be paid on profits. These people don’t make a weekly or monthly wage like the vast majority of normal people do, they aren’t taxed at source, it’s relying on their honesty when submitting self-assessments. We have a parliament full of people who work their finances in exactly that manner. They know every trick in the book and will do anything to protect the loopholes that allow them to hide their wealth.
 

These are the same people that are aghast at rail workers looking for a wage rise closer to inflation and guarantees of job safety, vilifying them at every chance they get. All this in the same week that the cap on city bankers bonus’ has been lifted in order to encourage foreign investment. So they don’t have a problem when it’s one of their own raking in an extra few million, but when it’s someone looking for an extra 2 or 3 grand a year the full media propaganda machine is fired up. It’s sickening, and I hope the RMT hold strong against these gangsters in suits. 

Tremendous post. When I finally get round to starting my political party, you're onboard.

[VincentGuerin]

17 hours ago, HK Hibee said:

I think the point I am trying to make which is being lost is that for the vast majority of us it isn’t about millionaires being billionaires but about your kids and my kids having money for a deposit on a house. 

Situations like this are why there is no chance of there ever being any real kind of balancing out of wealth inequality.

It's perfectly natural that you would want to give your kids a leg up, but it's also completely unfair. Your weans have done nothing to deserve a leg up, and if you have any decent amount of cash to leave them, then they've almost certainly benefitted from that while growing up.

They'll never have gone to bed or school hungry, unlikely to have had to act as primary carers for a sibling, there's a decent chance they've had access to books, opportunities to travel, the chance to join clubs and develop hobbies etc. All of these things already give them a head start in society.

Then when the time comes you chuck them money for a deposit for a house. So they spend less time (and money) renting, they quickly get hold of an asset that is simply out of reach for many people, and they do it relatviely cheaply, all while enjoying the benefits of the childhood they had. Meanwhile, the kids from round the corner have none of these things and generation after generation are left behind.

I'm not criticising you. It's completely natural for you to want to give your kids nice things. But it's also why our society will never be fair. Your kids' experience of life is like a 100 metre sprinter doping when compared to other kids who just lost out in the lottery of life. There's absolutely no moral reason for them benefitting from your success while other kids don't.

Wealth is essentially hoarded, and we know that wealth begets wealth. Your weans' weans will continue to enjoy the snowball effect. So, the haves have more, and the have-nots have comparatively less, and we don't have functioning services in the 21st century.

p.s. I like trains.

Edited June 24, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[RH33]

On 23/06/2022 at 14:04, invergowrie arab said:

Good quality social housing should be a right and not housing of last resort.

There was a time when council housing was the housing of teachers, nurses and other professionals.

My great grandad was deputy chief of police in Dundee and lived in a council house all his days.

They used to be an income generator and subsidise other areas of the council as well as providing huge amount of jobs for the trades people that serviced them.

The biggest cost for social housing now is the turnover of tenancies. Having generation's of stable employed families in council housing was a good thing.

This. I was served notice on my rental in March. Ex local authority came on to rent last week at £1000 a month.

[parsforlife]

4 hours ago, Abdul_Latif said:

That’s an interesting take on it. The rail industry may well become one catering purely to travel and leisure rather than commuting.

 

The rail service that currently does f**k all to attempt to service the nighttime economy is going to be known for leisure use? Doesn’t add up.

Edited June 24, 2022 by parsforlife

[Benjamin_Nevis]

2 hours ago, RH33 said:

This. I was served notice on my rental in March. Ex local authority came on to rent last week at £1000 a month.

This boils my piss to hitherto unknown levels. If it was at all possible, I'd bring in a law that any ex-social housing could not be let out for any more than the average LA/HA rate for a property of similar size in that area.

There's a company around here that hoovers up all the ex-social housing whenever it comes on the market then rents it out for double the going LA/HA rate with a "No DSS" requirement. Utter cuntweasels. 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

15 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

. Utter cuntweasels. 

Tories. They’re called Tories.

[HK Hibee]

3 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

Situations like this are why there is no chance of there ever being any real kind of balancing out of wealth inequality.

It's perfectly natural that you would want to give your kids a leg up, but it's also completely unfair. Your weans have done nothing to deserve a leg up, and if you have any decent amount of cash to leave them, then they've almost certainly benefitted from that while growing up.

They'll never have gone to bed or school hungry, unlikely to have had to act as primary carers for a sibling, there's a decent chance they've had access to books, opportunities to travel, the chance to join clubs and develop hobbies etc. All of these things already give them a head start in society.

Then when the time comes you chuck them money for a deposit for a house. So they spend less time (and money) renting, they quickly get hold of an asset that is simply out of reach for many people, and they do it relatviely cheaply, all while enjoying the benefits of the childhood they had. Meanwhile, the kids from round the corner have none of these things and generation after generation are left behind.

I'm not criticising you. It's completely natural for you to want to give your kids nice things. But it's also why our society will never be fair. Your kids' experience of life is like a 100 metre sprinter doping when compared to other kids who just lost out in the lottery of life. There's absolutely no moral reason for them benefitting from your success while other kids don't.

Wealth is essentially hoarded, and we know that wealth begets wealth. Your weans' weans will continue to enjoy the snowball effect. So, the haves have more, and the have-nots have comparatively less, and we don't have functioning services in the 21st century.

p.s. I like trains.

Aye I take your point. I am all for something fairer but whether it can get to something which completely “fair” is hard to see. 

[RH33]

22 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

This boils my piss to hitherto unknown levels. If it was at all possible, I'd bring in a law that any ex-social housing could not be let out for any more than the average LA/HA rate for a property of similar size in that area.

There's a company around here that hoovers up all the ex-social housing whenever it comes on the market then rents it out for double the going LA/HA rate with a "No DSS" requirement. Utter cuntweasels. 

I've been gifted a deposit and holding breath for full mortgage offer to go through this week as I took a last ditch attempt to get a mortgage and managed get something not totally over priced this week.

 

Council last week were no use last week. Basically said we've no stock so no point even applying but it's ok housing benefit will help with £1k rent. I don't get it any more because I went back to ft hours. Oh well nothing much council can do.

I'd registered with housing associations too but reality was three kids probably would've meant bouncing around homeless accomodation until something was free or pay rocketing rents.

[Cosmic Joe]

Coal not Dole

[Left Back]

3 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

Situations like this are why there is no chance of there ever being any real kind of balancing out of wealth inequality.

It's perfectly natural that you would want to give your kids a leg up, but it's also completely unfair. Your weans have done nothing to deserve a leg up, and if you have any decent amount of cash to leave them, then they've almost certainly benefitted from that while growing up.

They'll never have gone to bed or school hungry, unlikely to have had to act as primary carers for a sibling, there's a decent chance they've had access to books, opportunities to travel, the chance to join clubs and develop hobbies etc. All of these things already give them a head start in society.

Then when the time comes you chuck them money for a deposit for a house. So they spend less time (and money) renting, they quickly get hold of an asset that is simply out of reach for many people, and they do it relatviely cheaply, all while enjoying the benefits of the childhood they had. Meanwhile, the kids from round the corner have none of these things and generation after generation are left behind.

I'm not criticising you. It's completely natural for you to want to give your kids nice things. But it's also why our society will never be fair. Your kids' experience of life is like a 100 metre sprinter doping when compared to other kids who just lost out in the lottery of life. There's absolutely no moral reason for them benefitting from your success while other kids don't.

Wealth is essentially hoarded, and we know that wealth begets wealth. Your weans' weans will continue to enjoy the snowball effect. So, the haves have more, and the have-nots have comparatively less, and we don't have functioning services in the 21st century.

p.s. I like trains.

How do you know his kids have never gone to school hungry and have had this “perfect” life?

You’re making some pretty big assumptions.  For all you know the OP has struggled financially to bring up his kids and they could have had none of the things you assumed.

I know loads of people that had none of the advantages you listed but now have some assets.