The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[CVByrne]

13 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

Maybe we can just chip away at their majority with another 77 MPs being gradually exposed as wrong'uns leading to by elections.

No, we just need a comprehensive trouncing in a general election. No chipping away. Full defeat

[Genie]

2 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

The problem is the fact that there is a 20% total drop in revenue due to fewer passengers travelling. So to give staff the RPI increase that ticket prices have had would (using the crude maths) require a 20% reduction in staff.

I don’t think costs to revenue are directly linked like that. Many of the costs will be fixed regardless of how many people get on the train. 

The price has gone up by 10% already, and they’re getting subsidies and they they are turning profits even in the current climate.

They could also look to reduce numbers by a voluntary redundancy scheme or early retirement offering. Also longer term by not replacing people as they naturally leave or retire.

[Wainy316]

5 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

No, we just need a comprehensive trouncing in a general election. No chipping away. Full defeat

Well yeah, I was kind of joking suggesting they have another 77 wrong'uns in their ranks, but it's probably not far from the truth.

[CVByrne]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

I don’t think costs to revenue are directly linked like that. Many of the costs will be fixed regardless of how many people get on the train. 

The price has gone up by 10% already, and they’re getting subsidies and they they are turning profits even in the current climate.

They could also look to reduce numbers by a voluntary redundancy scheme or early retirement offering. Also longer term by not replacing people as they naturally leave or retire.

No, they aren't linked like that I was just saying a crude measure. Though some costs are variable, if we have fewer commuters we need less trains which requires less staff which means less use of the railways which requires less maintenance. 

So the problem right now is we've massive inflation (due to government printing money during pandemic to subsidise peoples wages and the war in Ukraine) and we also have a permanent loss of rail users which is an irreversible drop in revenue that needs to be adapted to. 

The two key variables in this are wage increases which increase the total cost and redundancies which reduce it. I have no idea how or when they will come to an agreement and it's just a horrible mess for those workers involved. Like everything, things outside our control impact our lives so significantly. 

[bickster]

Just now, CVByrne said:

if we have fewer commuters we need less trains which requires less staff

That generally isn't how railways work. It isn't a supply and demand model. For example trains are run for a whole number of reasons that have nothing to do with demand at that time. Passenger timetables are baked in for 6 month periods and the Summer timetable really only has minor changes to the wiNTER, any disruption to service causes problems which have knock on effects for hours on that part of the network.

I'm not sure if this is still the case but it used to be. On a Sunday Evening, there used to be a period late on of an hour where three trains would run from Euston to Liverpool.for what is normally an hourly service. Those trains were run because they needed the trains in Liverpool on a Monday morning. Then you have "parliamentary" trains, which run so the network can keep the rails on that line open, some of these trains aren't even advertised but you can use them if you know about them.

The idea that fewer commuters need less trains is really not as simple as you paint it because that really isn't the way railways are run.

The Tories don't understand this either. They also don't understand that you just can't put agency staff on in safety critical roles because those jobs take years of training

[CVByrne]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

That generally isn't how railways work. It isn't a supply and demand model. For example trains are run for a whole number of reasons that have nothing to do with demand at that time. Passenger timetables are baked in for 6 month periods and the Summer timetable really only has minor changes to the wiNTER, any disruption to service causes problems which have knock on effects for hours on that part of the network.

I'm not sure if this is still the case but it used to be. On a Sunday Evening, there used to be a period late on of an hour where three trains would run from Euston to Liverpool.for what is normally an hourly service. Those trains were run because they needed the trains in Liverpool on a Monday morning. Then you have "parliamentary" trains, which run so the network can keep the rails on that line open, some of these trains aren't even advertised but you can use them if you know about them.

The idea that fewer commuters need less trains is really not as simple as you paint it because that really isn't the way railways are run.

The Tories don't understand this either. They also don't understand that you just can't put agency staff on in safety critical roles because those jobs take years of training

I know it's not as simple as I made out, but if you look at the pre pandemic rush for millions of people to get into and out of London for work. The problem for commuters is that there were physical limitations on how quickly you could achieve that when everyone essentially starts work within the same 1 hours window. If we now reduce the number of people by 20% who are doing that every day we need fewer trains to achieve the goal. More people can get a train later now than they normally would as trains are less busy. So a reduction in the number of trains can achieve the same result of transporting those staff into the city. It's certainly not a linear relationship, I accept that. But the schedule pre pandemic and the one we will end up with for example next year will see a reduction in services. Anecdotally the Stansted Express used to run every 15mins all day from like 5am to midnight and now it's permanently moved to once every 30 mins. 

The real problem is the fact the passengers (and thus revenues) have dropped 20% not to return and costs can't scale to that as we've discussed. The entirety of the London transport system was based on an ever increasing number of people required to use the services year over year.  This leaves a massive hole as it's such a significant shock to the system. You throw in massive inflation on top of all of that and you've such a horrible mess. 

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I know it's not as simple as I made out, but if you look at the pre pandemic rush for millions of people to get into and out of London for work. The problem for commuters is that there were physical limitations on how quickly you could achieve that when everyone essentially starts work within the same 1 hours window. If we now reduce the number of people by 20% who are doing that every day we need fewer trains to achieve the goal. More people can get a train later now than they normally would as trains are less busy. So a reduction in the number of trains can achieve the same result of transporting those staff into the city. It's certainly not a linear relationship, I accept that. But the schedule pre pandemic and the one we will end up with for example next year will see a reduction in services. Anecdotally the Stansted Express used to run every 15mins all day from like 5am to midnight and now it's permanently moved to once every 30 mins. 

The real problem is the fact the passengers (and thus revenues) have dropped 20% not to return and costs can't scale to that as we've discussed. The entirety of the London transport system was based on an ever increasing number of people required to use the services year over year.  This leaves a massive hole as it's such a significant shock to the system. You throw in massive inflation on top of all of that and you've such a horrible mess. 

This is fundamentally incorrect. A 20% reduction in passenger numbers does not equate to a 20% reduction in trains provided.

1. Pre-pandemic London Rush hour trains were generally extremely overcrowded. A 20% reduction in rush hour passengers just makes them less dangerously overcrowded

2. If you don't run the earlier trains, the trains aren't in the right place for the later trains that people can get on more easily

3. If you reduce the number of trains, passenger usage reduces as a result, the availability of trains increases use, it is not the passenger numbers that dictate frequency, it is the frequency that dictates passenger numbers

[KentVillan]

Public transport is a public good, anyway. The idea that there are books to balance based on ticket sales is a nonsense. We subsidise train infrastructure, trains, staff, etc because they bring an enormous benefit to the wider economy and environment. Which is exactly what these strikes are demonstrating.

[Genie]

Going back to a discussion yesterday (about how the speaker consistently allows the PM to avoid answering questions in PMQ’s) I decided to drop him a line about it.

His office have responded already which is very impressive.

This is what they wrote:

Dear Dave, 

Mr Speaker asked me to thank you for your email and to respond on his behalf.  

The Speaker notes your comments and asked me to point out that he has, on a number of occasions, encouraged the Prime Minister to answer the questions put to him. For example, on Wednesday 2 September, he said "Order. I think that questions are being asked, and we do need to try to answer the questions that have been put to the Prime Minister. It will be helpful to those who are watching to know the answers." (https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-09-02/debates/E6B581D5-4A6E-4947-A767-FA55EBBF4C20/Engagements). 

On Wednesday 13 January, he said “Prime Minister, there are questions and sometimes we have got to try to answer the question that was asked of you. To run through the history is one thing, but in fairness, it is Prime Minister’s questions. It was the final question. We have lots of others to go through, so I think I am now going to move on to Simon Jupp in Sidmouth, who is desperate to ask a question of you, Prime Minister.”https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-01-13/debates/FF0968C6-A5BB-4070-9054-D97745B51902/Engagements  

The Speaker is the servant of the House and can only operate within the powers which the House has granted him. These do not include the authority to require Ministers to give proper answers to questions.  Such a power would, in any event, be inconsistent with the requirement for the Speaker to act impartially, since to adjudicate on the quality of an answer would necessarily be a political act.  

The most that the Speaker can do is to remind the House of the purpose and expected form of questions and answers, and to exhort Members and Ministers to bear this in mind. But Ministers, like other Members, take responsibility for their own remarks and you may therefore wish to draw your concerns directly to the attention of the Prime Minister, via your local Member of Parliament. 

Mr Speaker asked me to thank you for taking the time to write and to send his best wishes. 

Whilst i’m pleased they responded, especially so quickly it’s a bit of a disappointing reply.

Basically he doesn’t feel empowered to make the point more than once or twice a year.

[ml1dch]

Useful context of what should be seen as good / bad in both seats:

 

 

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, Genie said:

Going back to a discussion yesterday (about how the speaker consistently allows the PM to avoid answering questions in PMQ’s) I decided to drop him a line about it.

His office have responded already which is very impressive.

This is what they wrote:

Dear Dave, 

Mr Speaker asked me to thank you for your email and to respond on his behalf.  

The Speaker notes your comments and asked me to point out that he has, on a number of occasions, encouraged the Prime Minister to answer the questions put to him. For example, on Wednesday 2 September, he said "Order. I think that questions are being asked, and we do need to try to answer the questions that have been put to the Prime Minister. It will be helpful to those who are watching to know the answers." (https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-09-02/debates/E6B581D5-4A6E-4947-A767-FA55EBBF4C20/Engagements). 

On Wednesday 13 January, he said “Prime Minister, there are questions and sometimes we have got to try to answer the question that was asked of you. To run through the history is one thing, but in fairness, it is Prime Minister’s questions. It was the final question. We have lots of others to go through, so I think I am now going to move on to Simon Jupp in Sidmouth, who is desperate to ask a question of you, Prime Minister.”https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-01-13/debates/FF0968C6-A5BB-4070-9054-D97745B51902/Engagements  

The Speaker is the servant of the House and can only operate within the powers which the House has granted him. These do not include the authority to require Ministers to give proper answers to questions.  Such a power would, in any event, be inconsistent with the requirement for the Speaker to act impartially, since to adjudicate on the quality of an answer would necessarily be a political act.  

The most that the Speaker can do is to remind the House of the purpose and expected form of questions and answers, and to exhort Members and Ministers to bear this in mind. But Ministers, like other Members, take responsibility for their own remarks and you may therefore wish to draw your concerns directly to the attention of the Prime Minister, via your local Member of Parliament. 

Mr Speaker asked me to thank you for taking the time to write and to send his best wishes. 

Whilst i’m pleased they responded, especially so quickly it’s a bit of a disappointing reply.

Basically he doesn’t feel empowered to make the point more than once or twice a year.

The first line is a lie

[Genie]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

The first line is a lie

Yes, I suspected that too.

[CVByrne]

28 minutes ago, bickster said:

This is fundamentally incorrect. A 20% reduction in passenger numbers does not equate to a 20% reduction in trains provided.

1. Pre-pandemic London Rush hour trains were generally extremely overcrowded. A 20% reduction in rush hour passengers just makes them less dangerously overcrowded

2. If you don't run the earlier trains, the trains aren't in the right place for the later trains that people can get on more easily

3. If you reduce the number of trains, passenger usage reduces as a result, the availability of trains increases use, it is not the passenger numbers that dictate frequency, it is the frequency that dictates passenger numbers

Please read my post properly. I said this exact thing. There is no linear relationship between reduced passenger numbers and reduced services. So a 20% reduction in passengers doesn't lead to a 20% reduction in services. However a 20% reduction in passengers does lead to some reduction in services as people in London have already observed. Now if that reduction in services is 1%, 2%, 5% who knows. 

[bickster]

42 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

does lead to some reduction in services as people in London have already observed. Now if that reduction in services is 1%, 2%, 5% who knows. 

Nope, they used passenger demand as an excuse, the real reason was covid related staff shortages and not wanting to get fined or pay for delayed journey payments. The Government allowed them to break the service levels under that guise. Once those trains are advertised they are liable to make payments for cancellations

London has just opened (very late) the first section of the Elizabeth Line with an every 10 minute service, the demand as such isn't there for that but the frequency is required to build passenger numbers. With trains it's very much a case of provide the service and people will use it, reduce the service and they'll resort to other transport solutions

[Davkaus]

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

Public transport is a public good, anyway. The idea that there are books to balance based on ticket sales is a nonsense. We subsidise train infrastructure, trains, staff, etc because they bring an enormous benefit to the wider economy and environment. Which is exactly what these strikes are demonstrating.

For some reason, nobody ever talks about how much of a loss the armed forces make.

[CVByrne]

10 minutes ago, bickster said:

Nope, they used passenger demand as an excuse, the real reason was covid related staff shortages and not wanting to get fined or pay for delayed journey payments. The Government allowed them to break the service levels under that guise. Once those trains are advertised they are liable to make payments for cancellations

London has just opened (very late) the first section of the Elizabeth Line with an every 10 minute service, the demand as such isn't there for that but the frequency is required to build passenger numbers. With trains it's very much a case of provide the service and people will use it, reduce the service and they'll resort to other transport solutions

I'm sorry but there is no way a 20% reduction in commuters into London leads to a 0% reduction in number of services required. So whatever way they want to badge it, covid related or whatever. I'm saying the number of trains run in 2019 to service London (excluding new tube lines etc.) and the number of trains that will be run in 2023 will be different with 2023 a lower number of trains than 2019 to account for the new realities of 20% fewer commuters into London. The number of pre pandemic rush hour trains are not needed to meet the ultimate post pandemic demand.

A change of a train every 5 mins to every 8 mins will impact demand in no way as to the commuter there is no material difference in the service with such a small frequency difference. While as I stated I've no idea how many fewer train services are required to meet the reduced demand

[bickster]

30 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

A change of a train every 5 mins to every 8 mins will impact demand in no way as to the commuter there is no material difference in the service with such a small frequency difference.

Thats a 60% degradation of service, that will have a huge impact and will affect usage because it isn't one train, its every train used to connect. You degrade the service it has a multiplier effect throughout the network, it leads to less usage. Three connections could mean missing the final train, could mean another 15 minutes journey time, these factors push people to other services

Running a railway isn't as simple as you think it is. It certainly isn't as simple as the Tory Party think it is.

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, bickster said:

Thats a 60% degradation of service

No it isn’t. 24 in 2 hours to 15 in 2 hours is 37.5% reduction. 

[bickster]

35 minutes ago, blandy said:

No it isn’t. 24 in 2 hours to 15 in 2 hours is 37.5% reduction. 

Added 60% to the service interval time then

[StefanAVFC]

On 21/06/2022 at 17:34, StefanAVFC said:

When nurses go on strike it’ll be ‘why aren’t teachers going on strike?’ And when teachers go on strike it’ll be ‘why aren’t cleaners going on strike?’

people falling for the shit that it’s anyone other than the Tories’ fault are part of the problem too.