Commuting 'not coming back': Harper

[43066]

I doubt if many people read into it that current support matched the support in the thick of Covid.

I think you just did so yourself! I see you’ve now changed what you’ve written in post #298, but I’m afraid I had already quoted you in the post immediately below.

The text of your first response is what I quoted in #299 for anyone who wishes to read it.

I’ll leave it there.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think you just did so yourself!

I see you’ve now changed what you’ve written in post #296 , but I’m afraid I had already quoted you in the post immediately below.

Your first response is what I quoted.

I’ll leave it there.

Its open to interpretation really.

 

[43066]

Its open to interpretation really.

Not really. You’ve completely changed what you’ve written!

 

[Peter Sarf]

Not really. You’ve completely changed what you’ve written!

I don't think what I added to my post 296 makes it a complete change.

Also, to clarify - when I said "It is open to interpretation really" referred to in your post 303 I was referring to the the statement by Grant Shapps and the, poor or otherwise, use of the word "this".

TBH I doubt if we can be sure of what was meant or even if Grant Shapps himself carefully considered what it meant or appeared to mean. Many a word has been written by someone who knows what they meant but cannot see any of the alternative interpretations. Its why maybe we should all have a proof reader (gulp).

Back to post Covid rail and I hold my breath waiting for further recovery. All we do know is it has been recovering, too slowly for some and maybe too far to go. But the longer we wait and encourage rail use the less of a gap there will be to address. Also I read somewhere that changes are being made to reap potential new markets - probably redeploying assets within rail where they can earn more. More thorny is efficiency gains. Time is running out I fear and possibly made worse if the lack of commuting is down to lack of work thus causing lack of income/wealth/tax-revenues to spend on all sorts of things.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I didn’t use the word subsidy.

But, in any event (and to use just one example), NS in the Netherlands are doing exactly the same as here.

Isn't it the case that service cuts in the Netherlands are being driven by staff shortages and an apparent inability to recruit sufficient numbers rather than any desire to reduce public spending per se?

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think the government are using the support the railways got during Covid as a justification for cuts. I think they are saying look we have got to react to a loss of need and reminding us how supportive they have been SO FAR by referring to the support provided during the thick of Covid.

Can you explain where in the above quote it says the government/state spent money during Covid and that is why they now want cutbacks ?.

To me it says they kept the railways going during the worst of Covid but long term they need to look at cutbacks as demand has not recovered.

To me its obvious that the government will eventually reign in the subsidies. If the railways have lost 20% of their passengers then roughly 20% of subsidy would go. Very roughly and I believe putting off the worst for as long as possible. If that has been happening for the last nine months then that says to me that the government have been facing their belief that not much more recovery is possible.

The government could be wrong but the state cannot keep forking out for everything we would like. I will be happy if the state spends more than it could in the hope that recovery is still happening. But I think that there are too many people who have smelt the freedom, dont want to commute every day and know it is possible.

One thing the railways need to do to help their own cause is to modernise.

And I think that is the point. To hold the government to account for public spending of all sorts.

I once read that in London more journeys are made by bus than by rail.

EDIT
Indeed
/Edit

Chalk and cheese
Car luxury.
Train unwanted necessity but less necessary since Covid.

Yes people will happily forget some costs of the car because they want it for too many things.

I think it's obvious that the Government are using the support for the railway during covid as an excuse to drive through cuts.

You may disagree. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Krokodil]

I didn’t use the word subsidy.

You're splitting hairs again. We all know what ministers think of public funding.

But, in any event (and to use just one example), NS in the Netherlands are doing exactly the same as here.

They too appear to have pissed-off their workforce and found themselves short of staff, just like Avanti and TPE. I think that I'll look to other European countries for examples of how railways should be managed.

Its open to interpretation really.

Politician slings mud while being vague enough to allow plausible deniability. Knock me down with a feather.

 

[railfan99]

The modal share argument demonstrates the importance of rail to the UK economy. In many cases, despite the relatively high fares, people have no feasible alternative to rail.

Overseas visitors' use of National Rail varies by nationality but a British Tourism Authority survey found 23 per cent of overseas visitors used National Rail. (49 per cent used urban public transport):

https://www.visitbritain.org/sites/default/files/vb-corporate/Documents-Library/documents/foresight_176_-_internal_transport_modes.pdf

The share using NR rose to 25 per cent for those on what was classified as a holiday, while for visiting friends and relatives it was similar at 26 per cent. 43 per cent of visiting students from overseas used NR (unsurprising) but business visits only saw 14 per cent using NR (perhaps because many would be London-based and lacked time, need or inclination to travel outside the capital).

At the time of this 2018 survey (released in September 2020, rather slow!), this was nine million overseas visitors (annually) using National Rail trains.

By comparison, only five per cent hired a car or other self-drive vehicle, and only two per cent were in a hired bus (i.e. a package tour).

37 per cent of Australian visitors used NR. Despite our small population of 26 million, we are in the top five foreign spenders in the UK, higher than some Europeans as by and large the latter naturally stay for shorter periods.

This is despite my countrymen coming from a car-dependent society, especially outside the largest four cities, as are the USA (with 27 per cent of visitors using NR) and Canada.

So 'the railway' is extremely important in attracting overseas tourists.

Who wants the hassle of catching a domestic flight with time-consuming pre-flight procedures and numerous other problems?

 

[Krokodil]

One thing the railways need to do to help their own cause is to modernise.

What do you mean by "modernise"? Do you mean things like electrifying the railways in order to reduce operating costs, stimulate demand and reduce emissions? If so then the obstacles are the skinflints in HM Treasury who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Or is it the current political version of "modernise" which both parties have used in different contexts to mean "completely turn things upside down in a way which will be unpopular with the public but calling it 'modernisation' makes it sound like a good thing"?

I once read that in London more journeys are made by bus than by rail.

With less than two dozen rail routes within London but 700 bus routes then many people will find buses are the best option for getting from where they are to where they want to go. Had the tram network not been decimated this might not be the case.

 

[Bantamzen]

I honestly cannot believe that anybody thinks what Shapps said last year meant anything other than "we ploughed money into the industry to keep it going during the restrictionswe imposed, but now there needs to be cost and real cuts to reduce subsidies to recover that support. Because there is an election coming soon and we need the money to offer to our core base through tax cuts". If there is anyone, please remember politicians never actually say what they are going to do, more an inference on what they would like to do without giving the media ammunition against them.

 

[jagardner1984]

I think we are getting an insight into some of what led to privatisation in the 90s (not saying that was a good thing, at all).

But ultimately politicians want the plausible deniability of the lack of seats / carriages / drivers / signallers on the 0735 from Hemel Hempstead being not their fault.

I suspect whatever structure for GBR emerges in coming years will reflect that desire above all else.

Ultimately what we have is the worst possible combination of an interventionist government stopping the industry decision making sensibly, penny pinching on sensible measures to boost usage and reduce subsidy, while all the while enforcing effective pay cuts on staff through their own failures leading to sky rocketing inflation and preventing operators negotiating sensibly, further trashing the perception of the service amongst the travelling public, resulting in further suppression of demand and further cost to the taxpayer, whilst all the time maintaining the line of “it’s all TPE/AWC/NR’s fault, they need to fix it.”

I would love to imagine it will all be sunshine when the other lot come in in a year or so, and whilst I think there is a natural improvement in industrial relations when you remove the word “Tory” from the conversation, there is something in what Harper says about changes in demand, and that ultimately a lot more rail staff will need to work a lot more antisocial hours if, as is often commented here, Sunday services are the new Monday rush hour. A fundamental rethink of maintenance / engineering may also be needed from the de facto “close it at the weekend when it’s dead quiet”. Getting to the point where people are properly rewarded for the working patterns the travelling public now seem to require, may be one hell of a bumpy ride, whoever is behind the door of No 10.

 

[Meerkat]

I think it's obvious that the Government are using the support for the railway during covid as an excuse to drive through cuts.

You may disagree. We will have to agree to disagree.

Or he mentioned the huge support to the railway during Covid as a demonstration that the government do back the railway, to forestall attitudes like yours that all they want to do is cut the railway.

 

[Ken H]

Or he mentioned the huge support to the railway during Covid as a demonstration that the government do back the railway, to forestall attitudes like yours that all they want to do is cut the railway.

Or the government massiveley overspent during Covid and government borrowing has to be tamed. I think all departments will have to cope with decreasing budgets. Probably just not increased to cope with high inflation.

 

[zwk500]

Or he mentioned the huge support to the railway during Covid as a demonstration that the government do back the railway, to forestall attitudes like yours that all they want to do is cut the railway.

It's not as simple as 'the government backs it' or 'the government wants to close down the network'. The government are committed to continuing to support the railway but not to the level they currently are. Therefore they both back the railway and want to see cuts.

 

[yorksrob]

Or he mentioned the huge support to the railway during Covid as a demonstration that the government do back the railway, to forestall attitudes like yours that all they want to do is cut the railway.

It's no use to me them running a railway with empty trains when no one's allowed to travel then cutting it when people do want to travel.

As far as I'm concerned, covid is ancient history. I'm only interested in how the railway is run now, and as I see it all they want to is cut the railway.

 

[Meerkat]

It's not as simple as 'the government backs it' or 'the government wants to close down the network'. The government are committed to continuing to support the railway but not to the level they currently are. Therefore they both back the railway and want to see cuts.

Sure, but as soon as the government suggested subsidies were unsustainable they were going to get the usual 'anti rail Tories Grrrrr' stuff, so it would make sense to start by saying how much the government had spent keeping the railway going, as an indicator of actual policy.

 

[Class 170101]

I honestly cannot believe that anybody thinks what Shapps said last year meant anything other than "we ploughed money into the industry to keep it going during the restrictionswe imposed, but now there needs to be cost and real cuts to reduce subsidies to recover that support. Because there is an election coming soon and we need the money to offer to our core base through tax cuts". If there is anyone, please remember politicians never actually say what they are going to do, more an inference on what they would like to do without giving the media ammunition against them.

Shapps is a slimey so and so and Mark Harper isn't much better coming from the same wing of the Tory Party as Shapps.

The £16bn most have been or close to have been recouped by now by not announcing the RNEP (Rail Enhancement Pipeline projects) for many years by now. However I shall just leave the following links below posted yesterday for readers perusal and see what they think.

https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1639360900892090368

https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1639360936686280717

https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1639360968546213929

(I cannot vouch for the tweets credibility thats for you dear reader to decide)

 

[43066]

Or he mentioned the huge support to the railway during Covid as a demonstration that the government do back the railway, to forestall attitudes like yours that all they want to do is cut the railway.

No, he mentioned the support during Covid as a pretext to justify the spending cuts being made now, as the railway is recovering.

Sure, but as soon as the government suggested subsidies were unsustainable they were going to get the usual 'anti rail Tories Grrrrr' stuff, so it would make sense to start by saying how much the government had spent keeping the railway going, as an indicator of actual policy.

What you appear to be missing is that subsidies being described as “unsustainable” is a linguistic sleight of hand to disguise a purely political choice.

Is deliberate erosion of the tax base via abolition of the lifetime pension savings allowance sustainable? Are triple lock pensions sustainable? They are also political choices, costing the taxpayer huge amounts, but they appeal to the core Tory voter base.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Mar 2023 ==

I honestly cannot believe that anybody thinks what Shapps said last year meant anything other than "we ploughed money into the industry to keep it going during the restrictionswe imposed, but now there needs to be cost and real cuts to reduce subsidies to recover that support. Because there is an election coming soon and we need the money to offer to our core base through tax cuts". If there is anyone, please remember politicians never actually say what they are going to be do, more an inference on what they would like to do without giving the media ammunition against them.

Indeed. It’s extraordinary how certain people are determined to bend over backwards and split every possible hair to avoid acknowledging the obvious!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Mar 2023 ==

TBH I doubt if we can be sure of what was meant or even if Grant Shapps himself carefully considered what it meant or appeared to mean. Many a word has been written by someone who knows what they meant but cannot see any of the alternative interpretations. Its why maybe we should all have a proof reader (gulp).

No, it was said in a speech, which would have been written by a speech writer, every word would have been carefully considered. From your initial response last night, it has clearly had the desired effect!

 

[Irascible]

I think we are getting an insight into some of what led to privatisation in the 90s

Eh, I doubt deiniability/shifting of liabilities was more than a happy side-effect - privatisation was all about cutting the system into chunks so money - and there was always realistically going to be public money in the system somewhere - could be bled out at the interfaces, just like various governments of both sides have done to other public services ( hey there, PPP ). If I was a Tory I'd want people focussed on "typical Tory blame shifting" to get them to ignore the rest of it.

Or the government massiveley overspent during Covid and government borrowing has to be tamed. I think all departments will have to cope with decreasing budgets. Probably just not increased to cope with high inflation.

Did we ever get any of that wastage/fraud cash back again? Truss crashing the enconomy last year didn't help either.

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps I need to clarify.

Ministers (not just Shapps, and not just Transport ministers) have, of course, said that they spent large amounts of public money (our money, remember) supporting the railways through the pandemic.

What they haven’t done is then used it as a reason for reducing services.

What they have done is used it as a reason for pushing ahead with industry reform - as we have seen. This is at structural level (organisation of the industry and the contractual position) and at workforce level (as we have seen). Of course this industry reform was going to happen anyway, the pandemic is simply another (and some may say convenient) reason for doing so.

There also have been, and no doubt will continue to be, announcements that say “passenger numbers have changed, and rail services need to change to reflect that”


But to reiterate, there hasn’t ever been, nor do I think there ever will be, a statement from a minister that links these two issues and says “we spent x billion supporting the railways during the pandemic, and therefore need to cut services as a result”.

 

[Bantamzen]

Perhaps I need to clarify.

Ministers (not just Shapps, and not just Transport ministers) have, of course, said that they spent large amounts of public money (our money, remember) supporting the railways through the pandemic.

What they haven’t done is then used it as a reason for reducing services.

What they have done is used it as a reason for pushing ahead with industry reform - as we have seen. This is at structural level (organisation of the industry and the contractual position) and at workforce level (as we have seen). Of course this industry reform was going to happen anyway, the pandemic is simply another (and some may say convenient) reason for doing so.

There also have been, and no doubt will continue to be, announcements that say “passenger numbers have changed, and rail services need to change to reflect that”


But to reiterate, there hasn’t ever been, nor do I think there ever will be, a statement from a minister that links these two issues and says “we spent x billion supporting the railways during the pandemic, and therefore need to cut services as a result”.

I don't think anyone expects any minister to say cuts are made because of financial support during the restrictions. But that doesn't mean that they aren't actually doing exactly that. Anyone who has followed politics for more than 30 seconds must surely know that you don't take their exact words as gospel, younave fo read between the lines. And most people have done exactly that with Shapps' comments.

 

[43066]

Perhaps I need to clarify.

Ministers (not just Shapps, and not just Transport ministers) have, of course, said that they spent large amounts of public money (our money, remember) supporting the railways through the pandemic.

What they haven’t done is then used it as a reason for reducing services.

What they have done is used it as a reason for pushing ahead with industry reform - as we have seen. This is at structural level (organisation of the industry and the contractual position) and at workforce level (as we have seen). Of course this industry reform was going to happen anyway, the pandemic is simply another (and some may say convenient) reason for doing so.

There also have been, and no doubt will continue to be, announcements that say “passenger numbers have changed, and rail services need to change to reflect that”


But to reiterate, there hasn’t ever been, nor do I think there ever will be, a statement from a minister that links these two issues and says “we spent x billion supporting the railways during the pandemic, and therefore need to cut services as a result”.

The statement by Shapps (in June 2022) very clearly links support provided during the pandemic with future cost reductions, which we are now seeing.

There is no other reasonable interpretation of what he said, and I’m honestly not sure why anyone would seek to suggest otherwise!

 

[Meerkat]

The statement by Shapps (in June 2022) very clearly links support provided during the pandemic with future cost reductions, which we are now seeing.

There is no other reasonable interpretation of what he said, and I’m honestly not sure why anyone would seek to suggest otherwise!

It does not link them in a causal way. It is two separate statements, with the first there to show that the government is committed to railways.

 

[bramling]

the pandemic is simply another (and some may say convenient) reason for doing so.

Very convenient indeed. Sounds like a great deal for the taxpayer - £400 billion on a massively prolonged Covid response, to justify saving a few £ reforming some “pet hate” industries. And of course a certain person got PM off the back of it all as well.

 

[43066]

It does not link them in a causal way. It is two separate statements, with the first there to show that the government is committed to railways.

It very clearly does link them in a causal way (otherwise why mention the covid support at all!?). It misleadingly refers to the historic Covid support as “this level of subsidy” and uses this as justification for future cuts; “things must change”. What is meant should be obvious to anyone with a reasonable command of English.

You are of course free to swallow whatever politicians like Shapps tell you at face value. However it’s noticeable that you uncritically parrot the government’s line on absolutely everything, to an extent which seems implausible, so I do wonder whether you genuinely believe it, or whether you’re simply advancing an agenda.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Mar 2023 ==

Very convenient indeed. Sounds like a great deal for the taxpayer - £400 billion on a massively prolonged Covid response, to justify saving a few £ reforming some “pet hate” industries. And of course a certain person got PM off the back of it all as well.

Indeed.

And of course the faux concern over tax payer’s money didn’t prevent the government provoking and then dragging out a damaging and extremely expensive industrial dispute.

 

[Meerkat]

It very clearly does link them in a causal way (otherwise why mention the covid support at all!?)

I have explained this numerous times - you just don't want to consider anything that doesn't fit your pre-ordained view.

It misleadingly refers to the historic Covid support as “this level of subsidy”

Does it? Where?

What is meant should be obvious to anyone with a reasonable command of English

Throwing insults around doesn't make you correct.

You are of course free to swallow whatever politicians like Shapps tell you at face value. However it’s noticeable that you uncritically parrot the government’s line on absolutely everything, to an extent which seems implausible, so I do wonder whether you genuinely believe it, or whether you’re simply advancing an agenda.

And you are free to interpret it to fit your bias and assume anything the government does is bad.
The bold bit is just clearly not true.

 

[43066]

I have explained this numerous times - you just don't want to consider anything that doesn't fit your pre-ordained view.

You haven’t explained anything. You’ve just kept making assertions that aren’t supported by the text quoted, to the point where you’ve lost credibility.

Does it? Where?

Where it refers to the Covid subsidy support as “this level of subsidy”. I have pointed this out many times.

Throwing insults around doesn't make you correct.

I am perfectly capable of reading and interpreting text. What’s insulting is someone arguing black is white to suit their agenda and suggesting others have got it wrong.

And you are free to interpret it to fit your bias and assume anything the government does is bad.
The bold bit is just clearly not true.

This is a complete strawman, I don’t assume “anything the government does is bad”. However I am capable of reading that speech by Shapps, looking at the government’s actions and seeing the clear link between the two. No great surprise, the government wants to make cuts for political reasons, and the support during Covid was quite clearly used as the justification for doing so in the speech by Shapps.

The bold bit is patently true for anyone who has seen any of your posts.

 

[Meerkat]

You haven’t explained anything. You’ve just kept making assertions that aren’t supported by the text quoted.



Where it refers to the Covid subsidy support as “this level of subsidy”.



I am perfectly capable of reading and interpreting text. What’s insulting is someone arguing black is white to suit their agenda.



This is a complete strawman, I don’t assume “anything the government does is bad”. However I am capable of reading that speech by Shapps, looking at the government’s actions and seeing the clear link between the two.

The bold bit is patently true for anyone who has seen any of your posts.

Ok, I'm out. You clearly aren't willing to consider any other viewpoint, and just see what you want to see.

 

[robert thomas]

Ok, I'm out. You clearly aren't willing to consider any other viewpoint, and just see what you want to see.

I have never voted for any of the major political parties as they are too blinkered to act for the overall interests of the nation but it is quite obvious that the government has decided to get it's own back on the railways for purely political reasons having previously decimated the railway's income by prohibiting people from travelling during the pandemic and continually parroting that it supported the railways by 16 billion pounds(or 45 billion if you listen to The Telegraph) as a justification for the cut back in services and rolling stock

 

[bramling]

I have never voted for any of the major political parties as they are too blinkered to act for the overall interests of the nation but it is quite obvious that the government has decided to get it's own back on the railways for purely political reasons having previously decimated the railway's income by prohibiting people from travelling during the pandemic and continually parroting that it supported the railways by 16 billion pounds(or 45 billion if you listen to The Telegraph) as a justification for the cut back in services and rolling stock

I too see it as political opportunism. It may not have been the intention back in spring 2020, and it may well have been the case that prolonging the emergency Covid measures for *far* longer than necessary was down to other reasons, however it’s now obvious the government wishes to use this situation as a convenient reason to implement other, politically motivated, policy - or more likely ideological - objectives.

There’s the same agenda going on in respect of TFL, in this case quite obviously to punish London for not voting Conservative in parliamentary and mayoral elections.

I’d say the cat was let out of the bag when Truss mentioned rail unions multiple times in her final PMQ session. I don’t often agree with Mark Drakeford, however his rant in the Welsh Assembly at the arrogance of the Conservatives after Truss trashed the economy was about right. What sort of world does this government belong in?