Phone bills may well be cheaper but BT charge quite a bit to ISPs for capacity. This has resulted in monthly caps for many people.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Bob Crow announces yet another rail strike
- Thread starter northwichcat
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
strange6
Established Member
CarterUSM
Established Member
I don't really care about the politics of the argument, but I am getting a little sick of strikes being overturned by the courts on a "technicality". Whether it is a draconian set of laws or not, the RMT, and other unions, should be ensuring that it is not possible to challenge the ballot if it can help it.
Failed Unit
Established Member
True. I don't know if it is sloppy admin but it just annoys the members and delays the action. Hopefully soon they will be all watertight so challenges can't happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If you are on a cheap tariff you expect caps. If you want unlimited you pay for it. BT dont have a monopoly you know. It is exactly like rail pay little you gets lots of restrictions. Pay more you get flexibility.
Indeed, but bankers are now taking all the blame (which is unfair, as while many of them were doing dodgy deals, many are making the money that will pay our pensions and save our economy) but we spent money we didn't have.
It's bad enough that you or I might be irresponsible with money, getting financed to the hilt and then being unable to pay (and defaulting or declaring ourselves bankrupt, getting an IVA and starting over) but when the Government does it too?
I would certainly say that the Tories would have no doubt done the same. But, so what? They were voted out! You don't kick someone out to get an alternative that's worse - but that's what we did (well, some of us did!).
CarterUSM
Established Member
I don't think it is quite as simple as that, though it probably should be. Both parties should shoulder some responsibility.
Absolutely, but they did - and should have been stopped. What's the point in having a Government (and regulators) if they just turn a blind eye (or perhaps there were more sinister reasons, suggesting corruption, as it's hard to believe people couldn't see what would happen).
The banks didn't give a stuff about mortgages (I self certified and admit I lied by quite a bit on what I made) because everyone - from Gordon to the public (thanks to all the TV shows about making money from property) thought that house prices would just rise and rise and rise.
If that did happen, besides the fact nobody can afford to ever get on the housing ladder again (or move to a bigger house as every extra bedroom is probably a £100k on top), it would mean no risk to the lenders. Oh dear, you defaulted - oh well, let us repossess the house, sell it for a profit and share that with you, after deducting all our fees.
Anyone would think banks here deliberately gave mortgages to those they hoped couldn't pay. Or that they tried to give more money to those who would ordinarily have been able to pay, but were encouraged to borrow more (especially when remortgaging, with all the offers of adding a bit on top to get a new car, have a holiday etc) and then fell behind.
Look at the lending now house prices are steady, or falling. They don't want to lend money to anyone.
I definitely agree with Grant Shapps (or IKEA!) that we need to go back to thinking of a house as a home, not an investment.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
A few months have now elapsed since this was written and the house price average quoted by Halifax fell another 1.4% in April 2011. The Bank of England have kept the base rate at 0.5% for longer than all the "analysts" said that they would and there is talk about keeping it at this rate until 2012.
I think the writer was wrong in one respect and that was to say that in the case of a repossession, they would sell the house at a profit, which they would share with the owner, after deducting their fees. I know of an unfortunate repossession case where the mortgage for £145.000 was granted in July 2008, very soon before the financial crash. The house was sold by auction in 2010 and only sold for £89,000. Where was the profit in that?
I think you have misunderstood what Jonmorris0844 was getting at. I read it that the mentality of the lenders was that there was no real risk to themselves in lending to anyone, as house prices were seen as permanently rising. They assumed that if anyone failed to keep up the repayments, they would always be able to profit from the repossession. That is clearly a nonsense, as we can all now see, but I don't think he was wrong in saying that that was the prevailing mindset during the housing and lending boom.
Certainly house prices did stop rising, which is partly why so many people are now being refused mortgages without huge deposits and/or security. All of a sudden, banks are having to actually consider the real risk of defaulting, and losing money.
It's not as if they'll ever recover the money from someone who would likely declare bankruptcy if necessary.
But 10-15 years ago, everyone was thinking it would never end. Politicians, banks and all the TV programmes and 'experts' in the media telling people to invest in property. We had the 'feel good factor' that we could get a new house, a new car and get loans and credit cards to buy flat-panel TVs (new at the time) and go on holidays.
Naturally, there WERE people who did say it would end. People who said it HAD to end, even if their reasonings were dismissed. To a lot of people the eventual situation at the end of the 00s wasn't unexpected or a surprise.
House prices need to fall, and fall quickly. Some people will be stung, but for the next generation it will be the only way anyone can get on the housing ladder. First and foremost a house/flat should be a place for people to live, not an investment with every property bought up by investors (here and, often, abroad) to then make huge profits with high rents. Many landlords have of course been stung, as they can't now charge the rents needed to pay the huge mortgages they got on the overpriced property. Thus proving again that house prices are unsustainable.
It's not as if they'll ever recover the money from someone who would likely declare bankruptcy if necessary.
But 10-15 years ago, everyone was thinking it would never end. Politicians, banks and all the TV programmes and 'experts' in the media telling people to invest in property. We had the 'feel good factor' that we could get a new house, a new car and get loans and credit cards to buy flat-panel TVs (new at the time) and go on holidays.
Naturally, there WERE people who did say it would end. People who said it HAD to end, even if their reasonings were dismissed. To a lot of people the eventual situation at the end of the 00s wasn't unexpected or a surprise.
House prices need to fall, and fall quickly. Some people will be stung, but for the next generation it will be the only way anyone can get on the housing ladder. First and foremost a house/flat should be a place for people to live, not an investment with every property bought up by investors (here and, often, abroad) to then make huge profits with high rents. Many landlords have of course been stung, as they can't now charge the rents needed to pay the huge mortgages they got on the overpriced property. Thus proving again that house prices are unsustainable.
Quite right, there were plenty of warnings that the rises in house prices were unsustainable, but they were largely ignored both by the greedier banks and by consumers.
Fortunately, we were not caught out - although our house has fallen in value since we bought it, it is our home, and we don't want to sell it!
Fortunately, we were not caught out - although our house has fallen in value since we bought it, it is our home, and we don't want to sell it!
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Thank you for clarifying the matter. I now see what jonmorris0844's main point was. The example that I had quoted about the repossession was a great shock to the young couple whose home was repossessed as much of the finance came from the parents of the girl and boy concerned, so three lots of people suffered as a result of one transaction.
Like you, my wife and I regard our house as our home, not just an asset for financial gain. We were lucky to have bought this house in 1999.
I joined the property ladder in 1993, and as a result sold my first flat for £80,000 profit - but we still had to move out of London to get something bigger for a decent amount - as obviously all the other properties had gone up too.
I am lucky to have only a 65% mortgage now, so there's plenty of equity to manage any drop in house prices, and I actually want prices to fall as one day we'd like to move to a bigger, detached, house and the jump in price is simply too high at the moment.
Back in 1994, the difference between a 1-bed flat and a 2-bed was under £10k, and you'd probably pay around £40k more for a decent sized house. Now, you'd be looking at finding around £100-150k more to go up a level - which is just stupid!
I am lucky to have only a 65% mortgage now, so there's plenty of equity to manage any drop in house prices, and I actually want prices to fall as one day we'd like to move to a bigger, detached, house and the jump in price is simply too high at the moment.
Back in 1994, the difference between a 1-bed flat and a 2-bed was under £10k, and you'd probably pay around £40k more for a decent sized house. Now, you'd be looking at finding around £100-150k more to go up a level - which is just stupid!
passmore
Member
Quite, it was the whole subprime mortgages issue back 4 years ago which was the catalyst for the financial crisis.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
Indeed, both falling union members and falling participants in ballots on strike actions.
Bon Accord
Member
Interesting that overall RMT membership is falling.
In my own workplace we have a partnership at work agreement in place with two unions (covering different 'grades', so to speak), one of which is the RMT.
There is a PAW meeting twice a year where the RMT negotiates on behalf of their members/grade (50% of the workforce), or at least thinks it does, yet only 17% of our lads are RMT members - a figure that is reducing steadily as the years go on.
We had the son of an RMT National Secretary working with us, and his father therefore showed quite a lot of interest in the goings on, however once the boy left his father has been doing a passable impression of Lord Lucan.
Still happy to receive their monthly dues of course....
In my own workplace we have a partnership at work agreement in place with two unions (covering different 'grades', so to speak), one of which is the RMT.
There is a PAW meeting twice a year where the RMT negotiates on behalf of their members/grade (50% of the workforce), or at least thinks it does, yet only 17% of our lads are RMT members - a figure that is reducing steadily as the years go on.
We had the son of an RMT National Secretary working with us, and his father therefore showed quite a lot of interest in the goings on, however once the boy left his father has been doing a passable impression of Lord Lucan.
Still happy to receive their monthly dues of course....
A report in today's Observer says that Britain's railways "cost 40% more to operate than equivalent systems in France, Germany and the Netherlands."
Bob Crow's members should be made to understand that they enjoy terms and conditions far in excess of those enjoyed by the majority of their customers.
Bob Crow's members should be made to understand that they enjoy terms and conditions far in excess of those enjoyed by the majority of their customers.
Frustration with "the unions" is a frequently expressed view, fairly or not! In other areas in which I get involved, since last year the unions seem to have reverted from working cooperatively with organisations to develop and enhance "services" and conditions to the blind opposition we saw in the 70s and 80s. For instance, in health, the unions all came out against NHS reform before anything was in writing; similarly in teaching. It is little wonder that the image of the unions is once again deteriorating, when people like Crow state publicly that they see part of their role as being to oppose change.
Last edited:
Link to said article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/14/philip-hammond-rail-unions-transport
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/14/philip-hammond-rail-unions-transport
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
The Guardian have used a station in the photograph with impressive background scenery, with a modern train at a station with good quality platform surfaces, even though there are no passengers. Which station is this?
Last edited:
Hope, Derbyshire.
Thanks... looks like I forgot to include the link!
And anyone earning above minimum wage should understand that thousands earn less and should be prepared to take a pay cut forthwith...:roll:
Smudger105e
Member
That says train drivers, and most train drivers are ASLEF not RMT.
RMT members are paid on average a LOT less than $40K
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
But does include the London Underground which pay drivers £42k a year for a 35 hour 4 day week.
- Status