so someone who uses busses regularly, often not by choice, will incur a 50% rise in their travel costs.... well that seems okay doesn't it? Im sure the same will apply to all the Government ministers who are chauffeured up and down downing street too.... no? Just an increase in claimable travel expenses for them - seems fair.If I've read previous government stuff right, the cost of a £2 cap was £500m a year, at £3 it's only £151m. It's proportionately more of a saving because it goes to compensate the bus companies for what they lose on fares. And at £3 that's much closer to what the average commercial fare would be. But costs have soared, particularly on driver wages (Brexit, then Covid meaning Amazon poached bus drivers for driving vans).
So, a maximum of a tenner a week extra, in certain areas. Alternatively, they can jump on their bike and do it for free.
Tough judgements, for all, but one that the frothers will jump upon.
Sir Keir Tebbit telling "working class" to get on their bikes. The modern version is probably Escooters.It all adds up, especially for those who can't use bikes. I'm also yet to see a tough decision for those who can withstand it. So far, it's the most vulnerable who are taking the brunt.
All UK governments have done this in all US electionsTruss and Farage are individuals, and either no longer in power or haven’t actually been anywhere near it. So if they go to the US and appear at a rally, for example, there’s no repercussions in terms of the US-UK relationship after the election, because they have nothing to do with the UK government. No damage done.
The Labour Party sending staff over to help with the Democrat’s election campaign is an entirely different matter, as it inevitably suggests that the ruling UK party/UK government is taking sides in the election and openly preferring one outcome to another.
Depending on the election outcome, that could impact the UK’s relationship with its most important ally, and leave the UK worse off overall. That’s a party political issue impacting the UK, i.e. exactly what Starmer said he wanted to avoid. Once Labour gained power, they should not have allowed their staff to assist in the Democratic campaign, because doing so threatens the UK’s best interests.
Those are the facts of the matter, so I’m afraid a few crybabies on here will just have to deal with that, rather than pissing their pants when people spell it out for them.
Per bus, if you need to use 2 say 1 to terminus and another on to college that's £20 extra.So, a maximum of a tenner a week extra, in certain areas. Alternatively, they can jump on their bike and do it for free.
Tough judgements, for all, but one that the frothers will jump upon.
No I'm on a thread in the political forum, it's where you spend all your time. It did go quiet for a couple of days with some of the purples though when Rocky got caught on film.You following me around again?
My views must really rankle.
But that's only £20 a week, the guy will go as high as you like in defence of his party. If the purples turned on pensioners working class people have no chance with them. The purples don't actually care about the working classes. They invested a lot time over the years complaining about austerity, the gap between rich and poor and the behaviour. of politicians.Per bus, if you need to use 2 say 1 to terminus and another on to college that's £20 extra.
They can't afford the couple of hundred million I believe. Labour didn't half like to waffle about public transport. Cheap public transport for the masses and the environment.so someone who uses busses regularly, often not by choice, will incur a 50% rise in their travel costs.... well that seems okay doesn't it? Im sure the same will apply to all the Government ministers who are chauffeured up and down downing street too.... no? Just an increase in claimable travel expenses for them - seems fair.
So an extra £40 a month. For someone’s who’s already struggling that’s a lot. A tough judgement that will effect the most vulnerable who often use the busesSo, a maximum of a tenner a week extra, in certain areas. Alternatively, they can jump on their bike and do it for free.
Tough judgements, for all, but one that the frothers will jump upon.
To be fair, the increase isn’t a lot in the grand scheme of things but will add up over the year. And, yes, I do have sympathy for those struggling, for somebody to even have to use public transport, that has been neglected for years.So an extra £40 a month. For someone’s who’s already struggling that’s a lot. A tough judgement that will effect the most vulnerable who often use the buses
You sound a bit like a Tory or maybe the new labour now.
So an extra £40 a month. For someone’s who’s already struggling that’s a lot. A tough judgement that will effect the most vulnerable who often use the buses
You sound a bit like a Tory or maybe the new labour now.
The present £2 fare has proved to be popular. But the fact is the funding is coming to an end. The options were to allow the fares to go back to where they otherwise would have been or increase by the amount announced. The increase to £3 per trip, is for me, as a very irregular user of buses, still considerably cheaper than £9 return I paid to a station a couple of years ago. For regular users, students and of course those of pensionable age, there are either discounted period tickets or a free pass. The alternative is a continued subsidy which comes from general taxation.rminus and another on to college that's £20 extra.
Labour have retained a cap. They could have scrapped it altogether as the Tories hadn’t funded for it to be continued into next yearNew Labour mate
Reeks of it.
It's worth noting that as a regular bus user myself - and I'm sure other regular bus users will back me up on this - the price of my weekly ticket went up as soon as the £2 cap came in so regular bus users were actually subsidising the occasional bus users! Now I'm not knocking the £2 cap. It's been great and has probably gotten more people using buses but it seems a little odd that someone who uses a service - any service - regularly should see their prices go up, while those occasional users of the same service see theirs go down.The present £2 fare has proved to be popular. But the fact is the funding is coming to an end. The options were to allow the fares to go back to where they otherwise would have been or increase by the amount announced. The increase to £3 per trip, is for me, as a very irregular user of buses, still considerably cheaper than £9 return I paid to a station a couple of years ago. For regular users, students and of course those of pensionable age, there are either discounted period tickets or a free pass. The alternative is a continued subsidy which comes from general taxation.
So an extra £40 a month. For someone’s who’s already struggling that’s a lot. A tough judgement that will effect the most vulnerable who often use the buses
You sound a bit like a Tory or maybe the new labour now.
And guess who he supports as well.The fat c*nt MP is a coward as well by smacking somebody when they aren't prepared.
Minimum wage about to rise above inflationTo be fair, the increase isn’t a lot in the grand scheme of things but will add up over the year. And, yes, I do have sympathy for those struggling, for somebody to even have to use public transport, that has been neglected for years.
I go back to my own experiences of 3 years of use at approximately a fiver for a day return, going back 15 years. I thought it was a rip-off then but at £6 return, maximum, then I don’t think that’s bad.
As you mention the Tories, then one thing that did happen is that the minimum wage was raised from approx £9.00 per hour to nearly £11.50 over the last few years, giving people more money in their pocket. Still not great, and I’d like to see it much higher so that we don’t have to subsidise almost everything that those on a lower wage utilise.
Pay people a decent wage, that is my only angle.
When should ou smack someone then? After ou've sent them a note or an e-mither??The fat c*nt MP is a coward as well by smacking somebody when they aren't prepared.
That was my thought. Although the MP behaved like a **** and was totally out of order, the suggestion that someone getting into a fight should wait till the other person is ready is a little odd. I’m not saying it’s applicable in this case because the bloke he hit didn’t appear to look threatening, but if you’re in a situation where you’re pretty sure you’re going to get hit you’d get stuck in as quickly as possible or leg it.When should ou smack someone then? After ou've sent them a note or an e-mither??