Cheaper rail tickets for part time workers, says prospective MP

Daily Echo: Cheaper rail tivkets for part time workers, says MP Cheaper rail tivkets for part time workers, says MP

A CANDIDATE to become an MP has called for part-time workers’ trains tickets to be cut.

Prospective Lib Dem MP Jackie Porter has called for part-time season tickets to be introduced to cut transport costs for workers.

“We must respond to modern working patterns, the days of everyone working 9 to 5, five days a week are long gone,” she said. “These proposals could save local workers thousands of pounds each year.

“They could end an outdated system that currently prices many people out of work altogether.”

A Winchester to London season ticket currently costs £4696 per year.

Mrs Porter claims introducing part-time season tickets would save the average three-day worker £1878.40 each year.

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:09am Wed 2 Jul 14

Dai Rear says...

Hate to say it , because LD's are a waste of space, but this is actually a very sensible idea and I hope that one of the proper parties might take it up.
Hate to say it , because LD's are a waste of space, but this is actually a very sensible idea and I hope that one of the proper parties might take it up. Dai Rear
  • Score: 3

8:35am Wed 2 Jul 14

repcosy says...

Why only part time workers!? Why not full time as well! Not all full time workers are on are £30.000 salary!
Why only part time workers!? Why not full time as well! Not all full time workers are on are £30.000 salary! repcosy
  • Score: 3

8:53am Wed 2 Jul 14

Quizbook says...

How do we prove we are only working part-time ?
What is part-time ? 16 hrs per week ? 20 ? 30 ?

Just re-nationalise the railways and use the money going into the pockets of shareholders to cut the fares.
How do we prove we are only working part-time ? What is part-time ? 16 hrs per week ? 20 ? 30 ? Just re-nationalise the railways and use the money going into the pockets of shareholders to cut the fares. Quizbook
  • Score: 9

9:12am Wed 2 Jul 14

Linesman says...

I don't know why rail fares are so costly anyway.

Were we not told, when they were privatised, that the competition would drive the cost of travel down?

Didn't the same politicians tell us that, when the railway was privatised, it would no longer be a drain on the tax-payers?

What have we got?

Fares that are constantly rising, and ever increasing subsidies being paid by the government.

Where the government get its money?

From us, the tax-payers.

I wonder. Do the shareholders who own the railways, get paid a dividend?
I don't know why rail fares are so costly anyway. Were we not told, when they were privatised, that the competition would drive the cost of travel down? Didn't the same politicians tell us that, when the railway was privatised, it would no longer be a drain on the tax-payers? What have we got? Fares that are constantly rising, and ever increasing subsidies being paid by the government. Where the government get its money? From us, the tax-payers. I wonder. Do the shareholders who own the railways, get paid a dividend? Linesman
  • Score: 8

9:16am Wed 2 Jul 14

tootle says...

Silly idea - sorry but it is. Un workable for a start. Unfair as well. The person next to you works less hours and so pays less that you for the same seat and journey?. Also what if they have 2 jobs, both part time?.

Train fares tend to be expensive due to high demand - travelling off peak which part-yimers may be able to do is usually cheaper.
Silly idea - sorry but it is. Un workable for a start. Unfair as well. The person next to you works less hours and so pays less that you for the same seat and journey?. Also what if they have 2 jobs, both part time?. Train fares tend to be expensive due to high demand - travelling off peak which part-yimers may be able to do is usually cheaper. tootle
  • Score: 0

9:41am Wed 2 Jul 14

speedicut says...

With Smart Ticketing (e.g. Oystercards. Smart Phones) becoming more prevalent, this is actually fairly workable.

For example, a part time season ticket could give you access to the network for 3 days a week. Once you've been on the network for 3 days, your pass simply becomes invalid for that week.
With Smart Ticketing (e.g. Oystercards. Smart Phones) becoming more prevalent, this is actually fairly workable. For example, a part time season ticket could give you access to the network for 3 days a week. Once you've been on the network for 3 days, your pass simply becomes invalid for that week. speedicut
  • Score: 3

9:46am Wed 2 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Quizbook wrote:
How do we prove we are only working part-time ?
What is part-time ? 16 hrs per week ? 20 ? 30 ?

Just re-nationalise the railways and use the money going into the pockets of shareholders to cut the fares.
Definition of Part Time:- A part-time job is a form of employment that carries fewer hours per week than a full-time job. Workers are considered to be part-time if they commonly work fewer than 30 or 35 hours per week. (Wiki) ..... it also includes students ....
.
So as it stands today about 80% of the country would get cheaper train travel (tic) ........ Never going to happen
[quote][p][bold]Quizbook[/bold] wrote: How do we prove we are only working part-time ? What is part-time ? 16 hrs per week ? 20 ? 30 ? Just re-nationalise the railways and use the money going into the pockets of shareholders to cut the fares.[/p][/quote]Definition of Part Time:- A part-time job is a form of employment that carries fewer hours per week than a full-time job. Workers are considered to be part-time if they commonly work fewer than 30 or 35 hours per week. (Wiki) ..... it also includes students .... . So as it stands today about 80% of the country would get cheaper train travel (tic) ........ Never going to happen Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 1

9:56am Wed 2 Jul 14

sfby says...

speedicut wrote:
With Smart Ticketing (e.g. Oystercards. Smart Phones) becoming more prevalent, this is actually fairly workable. For example, a part time season ticket could give you access to the network for 3 days a week. Once you've been on the network for 3 days, your pass simply becomes invalid for that week.
Exactly - it shouldn't be difficult for the systems to cope with someone who wants to buy in advance, and for a discount on the daily price, say 150 journies per year and count them off the card / ticket as they're used.
[quote][p][bold]speedicut[/bold] wrote: With Smart Ticketing (e.g. Oystercards. Smart Phones) becoming more prevalent, this is actually fairly workable. For example, a part time season ticket could give you access to the network for 3 days a week. Once you've been on the network for 3 days, your pass simply becomes invalid for that week.[/p][/quote]Exactly - it shouldn't be difficult for the systems to cope with someone who wants to buy in advance, and for a discount on the daily price, say 150 journies per year and count them off the card / ticket as they're used. sfby
  • Score: 1

9:56am Wed 2 Jul 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Linesman wrote:
I don't know why rail fares are so costly anyway.

Were we not told, when they were privatised, that the competition would drive the cost of travel down?

Didn't the same politicians tell us that, when the railway was privatised, it would no longer be a drain on the tax-payers?

What have we got?

Fares that are constantly rising, and ever increasing subsidies being paid by the government.

Where the government get its money?

From us, the tax-payers.

I wonder. Do the shareholders who own the railways, get paid a dividend?
Answer to the problem was and still is to renationalise the rail industry.

To the collective shame of Thatcherised NuLabour under their de facto Tory rule from 1997 till 2010 they refused to even consider the idea, and now the right wing mob led by Miliband intends to stick with the same Thatcherite thinking.

That is if old real Labour voters elect the traitors of Labour Party on the basis that own evil monsters are better than the nasty devils of others.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I don't know why rail fares are so costly anyway. Were we not told, when they were privatised, that the competition would drive the cost of travel down? Didn't the same politicians tell us that, when the railway was privatised, it would no longer be a drain on the tax-payers? What have we got? Fares that are constantly rising, and ever increasing subsidies being paid by the government. Where the government get its money? From us, the tax-payers. I wonder. Do the shareholders who own the railways, get paid a dividend?[/p][/quote]Answer to the problem was and still is to renationalise the rail industry. To the collective shame of Thatcherised NuLabour under their de facto Tory rule from 1997 till 2010 they refused to even consider the idea, and now the right wing mob led by Miliband intends to stick with the same Thatcherite thinking. That is if old real Labour voters elect the traitors of Labour Party on the basis that own evil monsters are better than the nasty devils of others. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: -1

10:11am Wed 2 Jul 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Before trusting the lousy Lib-Dem parliamentary candidate's sound bite of convenience, regarding charging half train fare from part time workers, people should try to remember how for few posts in Cameron's government and ministerial limos the same party ditched the pledges in their manifesto for last elections.

Trusting these sugar coated Tories will always be safe investment in regret down the line.
Before trusting the lousy Lib-Dem parliamentary candidate's sound bite of convenience, regarding charging half train fare from part time workers, people should try to remember how for few posts in Cameron's government and ministerial limos the same party ditched the pledges in their manifesto for last elections. Trusting these sugar coated Tories will always be safe investment in regret down the line. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

10:19am Wed 2 Jul 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Quizbook wrote:
How do we prove we are only working part-time ?
What is part-time ? 16 hrs per week ? 20 ? 30 ?

Just re-nationalise the railways and use the money going into the pockets of shareholders to cut the fares.
Definition of Part Time:- A part-time job is a form of employment that carries fewer hours per week than a full-time job. Workers are considered to be part-time if they commonly work fewer than 30 or 35 hours per week. (Wiki) ..... it also includes students ....
.
So as it stands today about 80% of the country would get cheaper train travel (tic) ........ Never going to happen
So the Lib-Dem carrot is also dangled in front of the students..... Just like last time when the Lib-Dem promised them to abolish higher education fees and then in fact virtually double those????
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quizbook[/bold] wrote: How do we prove we are only working part-time ? What is part-time ? 16 hrs per week ? 20 ? 30 ? Just re-nationalise the railways and use the money going into the pockets of shareholders to cut the fares.[/p][/quote]Definition of Part Time:- A part-time job is a form of employment that carries fewer hours per week than a full-time job. Workers are considered to be part-time if they commonly work fewer than 30 or 35 hours per week. (Wiki) ..... it also includes students .... . So as it stands today about 80% of the country would get cheaper train travel (tic) ........ Never going to happen[/p][/quote]So the Lib-Dem carrot is also dangled in front of the students..... Just like last time when the Lib-Dem promised them to abolish higher education fees and then in fact virtually double those???? Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

10:21am Wed 2 Jul 14

andysaints007 says...

tootle wrote:
Silly idea - sorry but it is. Un workable for a start. Unfair as well. The person next to you works less hours and so pays less that you for the same seat and journey?. Also what if they have 2 jobs, both part time?.

Train fares tend to be expensive due to high demand - travelling off peak which part-yimers may be able to do is usually cheaper.
Read it properly you plum!
[quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Silly idea - sorry but it is. Un workable for a start. Unfair as well. The person next to you works less hours and so pays less that you for the same seat and journey?. Also what if they have 2 jobs, both part time?. Train fares tend to be expensive due to high demand - travelling off peak which part-yimers may be able to do is usually cheaper.[/p][/quote]Read it properly you plum! andysaints007
  • Score: 0

10:35am Wed 2 Jul 14

Linesman says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I don't know why rail fares are so costly anyway.

Were we not told, when they were privatised, that the competition would drive the cost of travel down?

Didn't the same politicians tell us that, when the railway was privatised, it would no longer be a drain on the tax-payers?

What have we got?

Fares that are constantly rising, and ever increasing subsidies being paid by the government.

Where the government get its money?

From us, the tax-payers.

I wonder. Do the shareholders who own the railways, get paid a dividend?
Answer to the problem was and still is to renationalise the rail industry.

To the collective shame of Thatcherised NuLabour under their de facto Tory rule from 1997 till 2010 they refused to even consider the idea, and now the right wing mob led by Miliband intends to stick with the same Thatcherite thinking.

That is if old real Labour voters elect the traitors of Labour Party on the basis that own evil monsters are better than the nasty devils of others.
When the railways were privatised by Thatcher, it was not done with efficiency in mind, but to make it extremely difficult and expensive for any future government to attempt to re-nationalise.

One company owns the tracks, while another has the signalling,

Freight traffic is carries by 'Heaven only knows.'

Stations are owned by another, and tickets appear to be sold by any Tom, Dick or Harry!

If you are at Central Station, you cannot be sure which train is run by which operator.

With regard your comments about the Labour Party.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I would point out that, when elections are held, considerably more people put their X against the Labour candidate than they do against the candidate that you support.

Had it never crossed your mind to ask why that should be?
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I don't know why rail fares are so costly anyway. Were we not told, when they were privatised, that the competition would drive the cost of travel down? Didn't the same politicians tell us that, when the railway was privatised, it would no longer be a drain on the tax-payers? What have we got? Fares that are constantly rising, and ever increasing subsidies being paid by the government. Where the government get its money? From us, the tax-payers. I wonder. Do the shareholders who own the railways, get paid a dividend?[/p][/quote]Answer to the problem was and still is to renationalise the rail industry. To the collective shame of Thatcherised NuLabour under their de facto Tory rule from 1997 till 2010 they refused to even consider the idea, and now the right wing mob led by Miliband intends to stick with the same Thatcherite thinking. That is if old real Labour voters elect the traitors of Labour Party on the basis that own evil monsters are better than the nasty devils of others.[/p][/quote]When the railways were privatised by Thatcher, it was not done with efficiency in mind, but to make it extremely difficult and expensive for any future government to attempt to re-nationalise. One company owns the tracks, while another has the signalling, Freight traffic is carries by 'Heaven only knows.' Stations are owned by another, and tickets appear to be sold by any Tom, Dick or Harry! If you are at Central Station, you cannot be sure which train is run by which operator. With regard your comments about the Labour Party. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I would point out that, when elections are held, considerably more people put their X against the Labour candidate than they do against the candidate that you support. Had it never crossed your mind to ask why that should be? Linesman
  • Score: -3

11:27am Wed 2 Jul 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Linesman wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I don't know why rail fares are so costly anyway.

Were we not told, when they were privatised, that the competition would drive the cost of travel down?

Didn't the same politicians tell us that, when the railway was privatised, it would no longer be a drain on the tax-payers?

What have we got?

Fares that are constantly rising, and ever increasing subsidies being paid by the government.

Where the government get its money?

From us, the tax-payers.

I wonder. Do the shareholders who own the railways, get paid a dividend?
Answer to the problem was and still is to renationalise the rail industry.

To the collective shame of Thatcherised NuLabour under their de facto Tory rule from 1997 till 2010 they refused to even consider the idea, and now the right wing mob led by Miliband intends to stick with the same Thatcherite thinking.

That is if old real Labour voters elect the traitors of Labour Party on the basis that own evil monsters are better than the nasty devils of others.
When the railways were privatised by Thatcher, it was not done with efficiency in mind, but to make it extremely difficult and expensive for any future government to attempt to re-nationalise.

One company owns the tracks, while another has the signalling,

Freight traffic is carries by 'Heaven only knows.'

Stations are owned by another, and tickets appear to be sold by any Tom, Dick or Harry!

If you are at Central Station, you cannot be sure which train is run by which operator.

With regard your comments about the Labour Party.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I would point out that, when elections are held, considerably more people put their X against the Labour candidate than they do against the candidate that you support.

Had it never crossed your mind to ask why that should be?
One of those candidate during last election was Alan Whitehead and depending on the mob that dominates NuLabour he may still be the candidate for my area. If so I will vote for him yet again.

Hope your (one of many NuLabour 'lovies' on this website) prediction of more people supporting others against Alan than me will not materialise.

Yes in Eastleigh by election where I canvassed for your beloved NuLabour many times more people voted against the candidate who was parachuted into Eastleigh by the Thatcherised Leadership in London.

With supporters like your good self, who love throwing mud around with the silly childish hope that it may stick, hardly surprising popularity Milliband is falling faster than led brick would if thrown out of sky.

As a socialist I believe in giving the credit where due. So yes you have a sharp brain. But unfortunately in eagerness to score points often forget to engage it before making comment, so end up in scoring own goal and driving likes of I away from most reluctantly supporting the party you pretend to admire love and promote.

Isn't that typically NuLabour behaviour, which has driven many of us out of the party?

Now back to my view about renationalising rail industry: Your excuses are lame, if there is a political will it can be done. Search for how many different firms operated the industry when it was nationalised in the first place. And check out how many service providers were in health industry before Nye Bevan put them into single National Health Service.

Face the fact, you NuLabourites only believe in making excuses and opportunism, lack any political courage or the will to stand up and get counted, apart from slavishly serving the bankers big business and the super rich plus the EU
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I don't know why rail fares are so costly anyway. Were we not told, when they were privatised, that the competition would drive the cost of travel down? Didn't the same politicians tell us that, when the railway was privatised, it would no longer be a drain on the tax-payers? What have we got? Fares that are constantly rising, and ever increasing subsidies being paid by the government. Where the government get its money? From us, the tax-payers. I wonder. Do the shareholders who own the railways, get paid a dividend?[/p][/quote]Answer to the problem was and still is to renationalise the rail industry. To the collective shame of Thatcherised NuLabour under their de facto Tory rule from 1997 till 2010 they refused to even consider the idea, and now the right wing mob led by Miliband intends to stick with the same Thatcherite thinking. That is if old real Labour voters elect the traitors of Labour Party on the basis that own evil monsters are better than the nasty devils of others.[/p][/quote]When the railways were privatised by Thatcher, it was not done with efficiency in mind, but to make it extremely difficult and expensive for any future government to attempt to re-nationalise. One company owns the tracks, while another has the signalling, Freight traffic is carries by 'Heaven only knows.' Stations are owned by another, and tickets appear to be sold by any Tom, Dick or Harry! If you are at Central Station, you cannot be sure which train is run by which operator. With regard your comments about the Labour Party. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I would point out that, when elections are held, considerably more people put their X against the Labour candidate than they do against the candidate that you support. Had it never crossed your mind to ask why that should be?[/p][/quote]One of those candidate during last election was Alan Whitehead and depending on the mob that dominates NuLabour he may still be the candidate for my area. If so I will vote for him yet again. Hope your (one of many NuLabour 'lovies' on this website) prediction of more people supporting others against Alan than me will not materialise. Yes in Eastleigh by election where I canvassed for your beloved NuLabour many times more people voted against the candidate who was parachuted into Eastleigh by the Thatcherised Leadership in London. With supporters like your good self, who love throwing mud around with the silly childish hope that it may stick, hardly surprising popularity Milliband is falling faster than led brick would if thrown out of sky. As a socialist I believe in giving the credit where due. So yes you have a sharp brain. But unfortunately in eagerness to score points often forget to engage it before making comment, so end up in scoring own goal and driving likes of I away from most reluctantly supporting the party you pretend to admire love and promote. Isn't that typically NuLabour behaviour, which has driven many of us out of the party? Now back to my view about renationalising rail industry: Your excuses are lame, if there is a political will it can be done. Search for how many different firms operated the industry when it was nationalised in the first place. And check out how many service providers were in health industry before Nye Bevan put them into single National Health Service. Face the fact, you NuLabourites only believe in making excuses and opportunism, lack any political courage or the will to stand up and get counted, apart from slavishly serving the bankers big business and the super rich plus the EU Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: -7

3:42pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Linesman says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I don't know why rail fares are so costly anyway.

Were we not told, when they were privatised, that the competition would drive the cost of travel down?

Didn't the same politicians tell us that, when the railway was privatised, it would no longer be a drain on the tax-payers?

What have we got?

Fares that are constantly rising, and ever increasing subsidies being paid by the government.

Where the government get its money?

From us, the tax-payers.

I wonder. Do the shareholders who own the railways, get paid a dividend?
Answer to the problem was and still is to renationalise the rail industry.

To the collective shame of Thatcherised NuLabour under their de facto Tory rule from 1997 till 2010 they refused to even consider the idea, and now the right wing mob led by Miliband intends to stick with the same Thatcherite thinking.

That is if old real Labour voters elect the traitors of Labour Party on the basis that own evil monsters are better than the nasty devils of others.
When the railways were privatised by Thatcher, it was not done with efficiency in mind, but to make it extremely difficult and expensive for any future government to attempt to re-nationalise.

One company owns the tracks, while another has the signalling,

Freight traffic is carries by 'Heaven only knows.'

Stations are owned by another, and tickets appear to be sold by any Tom, Dick or Harry!

If you are at Central Station, you cannot be sure which train is run by which operator.

With regard your comments about the Labour Party.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I would point out that, when elections are held, considerably more people put their X against the Labour candidate than they do against the candidate that you support.

Had it never crossed your mind to ask why that should be?
One of those candidate during last election was Alan Whitehead and depending on the mob that dominates NuLabour he may still be the candidate for my area. If so I will vote for him yet again.

Hope your (one of many NuLabour 'lovies' on this website) prediction of more people supporting others against Alan than me will not materialise.

Yes in Eastleigh by election where I canvassed for your beloved NuLabour many times more people voted against the candidate who was parachuted into Eastleigh by the Thatcherised Leadership in London.

With supporters like your good self, who love throwing mud around with the silly childish hope that it may stick, hardly surprising popularity Milliband is falling faster than led brick would if thrown out of sky.

As a socialist I believe in giving the credit where due. So yes you have a sharp brain. But unfortunately in eagerness to score points often forget to engage it before making comment, so end up in scoring own goal and driving likes of I away from most reluctantly supporting the party you pretend to admire love and promote.

Isn't that typically NuLabour behaviour, which has driven many of us out of the party?

Now back to my view about renationalising rail industry: Your excuses are lame, if there is a political will it can be done. Search for how many different firms operated the industry when it was nationalised in the first place. And check out how many service providers were in health industry before Nye Bevan put them into single National Health Service.

Face the fact, you NuLabourites only believe in making excuses and opportunism, lack any political courage or the will to stand up and get counted, apart from slavishly serving the bankers big business and the super rich plus the EU
At my age I am neither Nu or New anything, however I do see things as they actually are, not as I think that they should be.

I realise that things will be perfect, when we have perfect politicians, living in a perfect world.

I think that it is perfectly obvious that when this comes about, we will be under attack from a swarm of flying pigs.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I don't know why rail fares are so costly anyway. Were we not told, when they were privatised, that the competition would drive the cost of travel down? Didn't the same politicians tell us that, when the railway was privatised, it would no longer be a drain on the tax-payers? What have we got? Fares that are constantly rising, and ever increasing subsidies being paid by the government. Where the government get its money? From us, the tax-payers. I wonder. Do the shareholders who own the railways, get paid a dividend?[/p][/quote]Answer to the problem was and still is to renationalise the rail industry. To the collective shame of Thatcherised NuLabour under their de facto Tory rule from 1997 till 2010 they refused to even consider the idea, and now the right wing mob led by Miliband intends to stick with the same Thatcherite thinking. That is if old real Labour voters elect the traitors of Labour Party on the basis that own evil monsters are better than the nasty devils of others.[/p][/quote]When the railways were privatised by Thatcher, it was not done with efficiency in mind, but to make it extremely difficult and expensive for any future government to attempt to re-nationalise. One company owns the tracks, while another has the signalling, Freight traffic is carries by 'Heaven only knows.' Stations are owned by another, and tickets appear to be sold by any Tom, Dick or Harry! If you are at Central Station, you cannot be sure which train is run by which operator. With regard your comments about the Labour Party. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I would point out that, when elections are held, considerably more people put their X against the Labour candidate than they do against the candidate that you support. Had it never crossed your mind to ask why that should be?[/p][/quote]One of those candidate during last election was Alan Whitehead and depending on the mob that dominates NuLabour he may still be the candidate for my area. If so I will vote for him yet again. Hope your (one of many NuLabour 'lovies' on this website) prediction of more people supporting others against Alan than me will not materialise. Yes in Eastleigh by election where I canvassed for your beloved NuLabour many times more people voted against the candidate who was parachuted into Eastleigh by the Thatcherised Leadership in London. With supporters like your good self, who love throwing mud around with the silly childish hope that it may stick, hardly surprising popularity Milliband is falling faster than led brick would if thrown out of sky. As a socialist I believe in giving the credit where due. So yes you have a sharp brain. But unfortunately in eagerness to score points often forget to engage it before making comment, so end up in scoring own goal and driving likes of I away from most reluctantly supporting the party you pretend to admire love and promote. Isn't that typically NuLabour behaviour, which has driven many of us out of the party? Now back to my view about renationalising rail industry: Your excuses are lame, if there is a political will it can be done. Search for how many different firms operated the industry when it was nationalised in the first place. And check out how many service providers were in health industry before Nye Bevan put them into single National Health Service. Face the fact, you NuLabourites only believe in making excuses and opportunism, lack any political courage or the will to stand up and get counted, apart from slavishly serving the bankers big business and the super rich plus the EU[/p][/quote]At my age I am neither Nu or New anything, however I do see things as they actually are, not as I think that they should be. I realise that things will be perfect, when we have perfect politicians, living in a perfect world. I think that it is perfectly obvious that when this comes about, we will be under attack from a swarm of flying pigs. Linesman
  • Score: 2

12:59am Thu 3 Jul 14

southy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Quizbook wrote:
How do we prove we are only working part-time ?
What is part-time ? 16 hrs per week ? 20 ? 30 ?

Just re-nationalise the railways and use the money going into the pockets of shareholders to cut the fares.
Definition of Part Time:- A part-time job is a form of employment that carries fewer hours per week than a full-time job. Workers are considered to be part-time if they commonly work fewer than 30 or 35 hours per week. (Wiki) ..... it also includes students ....
.
So as it stands today about 80% of the country would get cheaper train travel (tic) ........ Never going to happen
DWP says part time is 15 hours and 59 mins, 16 hours according to DWP is full time.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quizbook[/bold] wrote: How do we prove we are only working part-time ? What is part-time ? 16 hrs per week ? 20 ? 30 ? Just re-nationalise the railways and use the money going into the pockets of shareholders to cut the fares.[/p][/quote]Definition of Part Time:- A part-time job is a form of employment that carries fewer hours per week than a full-time job. Workers are considered to be part-time if they commonly work fewer than 30 or 35 hours per week. (Wiki) ..... it also includes students .... . So as it stands today about 80% of the country would get cheaper train travel (tic) ........ Never going to happen[/p][/quote]DWP says part time is 15 hours and 59 mins, 16 hours according to DWP is full time. southy
  • Score: -1

8:25am Thu 3 Jul 14

Dai Rear says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I don't know why rail fares are so costly anyway.

Were we not told, when they were privatised, that the competition would drive the cost of travel down?

Didn't the same politicians tell us that, when the railway was privatised, it would no longer be a drain on the tax-payers?

What have we got?

Fares that are constantly rising, and ever increasing subsidies being paid by the government.

Where the government get its money?

From us, the tax-payers.

I wonder. Do the shareholders who own the railways, get paid a dividend?
Answer to the problem was and still is to renationalise the rail industry.

To the collective shame of Thatcherised NuLabour under their de facto Tory rule from 1997 till 2010 they refused to even consider the idea, and now the right wing mob led by Miliband intends to stick with the same Thatcherite thinking.

That is if old real Labour voters elect the traitors of Labour Party on the basis that own evil monsters are better than the nasty devils of others.
I know it means nothing to communists like you, but between 1914 and 1948 the railways were expropriated, an act entirely against the rule of law and wholly contrary to what my father and his brothers were told they fought (and died) in WW2 to defend, liberty.
In a way the half witted "privatisation" of the network, led by the need to appease the Paris-Berlin Axis, was a continuation of the same Big State flat-footed ineptitude.
No wonder so few people bother to vote.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I don't know why rail fares are so costly anyway. Were we not told, when they were privatised, that the competition would drive the cost of travel down? Didn't the same politicians tell us that, when the railway was privatised, it would no longer be a drain on the tax-payers? What have we got? Fares that are constantly rising, and ever increasing subsidies being paid by the government. Where the government get its money? From us, the tax-payers. I wonder. Do the shareholders who own the railways, get paid a dividend?[/p][/quote]Answer to the problem was and still is to renationalise the rail industry. To the collective shame of Thatcherised NuLabour under their de facto Tory rule from 1997 till 2010 they refused to even consider the idea, and now the right wing mob led by Miliband intends to stick with the same Thatcherite thinking. That is if old real Labour voters elect the traitors of Labour Party on the basis that own evil monsters are better than the nasty devils of others.[/p][/quote]I know it means nothing to communists like you, but between 1914 and 1948 the railways were expropriated, an act entirely against the rule of law and wholly contrary to what my father and his brothers were told they fought (and died) in WW2 to defend, liberty. In a way the half witted "privatisation" of the network, led by the need to appease the Paris-Berlin Axis, was a continuation of the same Big State flat-footed ineptitude. No wonder so few people bother to vote. Dai Rear
  • Score: -2

9:40am Thu 3 Jul 14

Paramjit Bahia says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I don't know why rail fares are so costly anyway.

Were we not told, when they were privatised, that the competition would drive the cost of travel down?

Didn't the same politicians tell us that, when the railway was privatised, it would no longer be a drain on the tax-payers?

What have we got?

Fares that are constantly rising, and ever increasing subsidies being paid by the government.

Where the government get its money?

From us, the tax-payers.

I wonder. Do the shareholders who own the railways, get paid a dividend?
Answer to the problem was and still is to renationalise the rail industry.

To the collective shame of Thatcherised NuLabour under their de facto Tory rule from 1997 till 2010 they refused to even consider the idea, and now the right wing mob led by Miliband intends to stick with the same Thatcherite thinking.

That is if old real Labour voters elect the traitors of Labour Party on the basis that own evil monsters are better than the nasty devils of others.
I know it means nothing to communists like you, but between 1914 and 1948 the railways were expropriated, an act entirely against the rule of law and wholly contrary to what my father and his brothers were told they fought (and died) in WW2 to defend, liberty.
In a way the half witted "privatisation" of the network, led by the need to appease the Paris-Berlin Axis, was a continuation of the same Big State flat-footed ineptitude.
No wonder so few people bother to vote.
Obviously there is no limit to your highly biased close minded imagination or it may be addiction to lying. I have always been a socialist and never a "communist", Maoist, Stalinist or Trotskyist. You are a liar
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I don't know why rail fares are so costly anyway. Were we not told, when they were privatised, that the competition would drive the cost of travel down? Didn't the same politicians tell us that, when the railway was privatised, it would no longer be a drain on the tax-payers? What have we got? Fares that are constantly rising, and ever increasing subsidies being paid by the government. Where the government get its money? From us, the tax-payers. I wonder. Do the shareholders who own the railways, get paid a dividend?[/p][/quote]Answer to the problem was and still is to renationalise the rail industry. To the collective shame of Thatcherised NuLabour under their de facto Tory rule from 1997 till 2010 they refused to even consider the idea, and now the right wing mob led by Miliband intends to stick with the same Thatcherite thinking. That is if old real Labour voters elect the traitors of Labour Party on the basis that own evil monsters are better than the nasty devils of others.[/p][/quote]I know it means nothing to communists like you, but between 1914 and 1948 the railways were expropriated, an act entirely against the rule of law and wholly contrary to what my father and his brothers were told they fought (and died) in WW2 to defend, liberty. In a way the half witted "privatisation" of the network, led by the need to appease the Paris-Berlin Axis, was a continuation of the same Big State flat-footed ineptitude. No wonder so few people bother to vote.[/p][/quote]Obviously there is no limit to your highly biased close minded imagination or it may be addiction to lying. I have always been a socialist and never a "communist", Maoist, Stalinist or Trotskyist. You are a liar Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 1

10:10am Thu 3 Jul 14

Lone Ranger. says...

southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Quizbook wrote:
How do we prove we are only working part-time ?
What is part-time ? 16 hrs per week ? 20 ? 30 ?

Just re-nationalise the railways and use the money going into the pockets of shareholders to cut the fares.
Definition of Part Time:- A part-time job is a form of employment that carries fewer hours per week than a full-time job. Workers are considered to be part-time if they commonly work fewer than 30 or 35 hours per week. (Wiki) ..... it also includes students ....
.
So as it stands today about 80% of the country would get cheaper train travel (tic) ........ Never going to happen
DWP says part time is 15 hours and 59 mins, 16 hours according to DWP is full time.
A part-time worker is someone who works fewer hours than a full-time worker. There is no specific number of hours that makes someone full or part-time, but a full-time worker will usually work 35 hours or more a week.
......... Source:- GOV.uk & ACAS
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quizbook[/bold] wrote: How do we prove we are only working part-time ? What is part-time ? 16 hrs per week ? 20 ? 30 ? Just re-nationalise the railways and use the money going into the pockets of shareholders to cut the fares.[/p][/quote]Definition of Part Time:- A part-time job is a form of employment that carries fewer hours per week than a full-time job. Workers are considered to be part-time if they commonly work fewer than 30 or 35 hours per week. (Wiki) ..... it also includes students .... . So as it stands today about 80% of the country would get cheaper train travel (tic) ........ Never going to happen[/p][/quote]DWP says part time is 15 hours and 59 mins, 16 hours according to DWP is full time.[/p][/quote]A part-time worker is someone who works fewer hours than a full-time worker. There is no specific number of hours that makes someone full or part-time, but a full-time worker will usually work 35 hours or more a week. ......... Source:- GOV.uk & ACAS Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree