rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the current problems are > far broader than what's happening at London Bridge > and are in no small part down to management failures. I'm sure you're right, just saying that should the line be brought under TfL, you can't expect the service to become miraculously reliable - they'd be many factors out of their control. Pretty much what lpool said. And TfL also have their share of industrial disputes, closures, etc.
bil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These are much better managed than the existing Southern service. Maybe. But not really a fair comparison, as it's not directly impacted by the dysfunctional London Bridge.
I thought that maybe the 'Social Democrats' would be a nice name. Then they could merge with the LibDems and call themselves the Liberal Social Democrats (LSD).
Nationalisation is not going to be some sort of silver bullet. Yes idealistically I'd prefer the service wasn't ran for profit, but if it can be ran competently, I don't really care if it's public or private.
That guardian article mentioned that some passengers are apparently planning a fare strike. I mentioned it half in jest earlier... but I would have no problem jumping the barrier if there was strength in numbers. It's not right that customers should pay the full fare for such a radically reduced service.
Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > there are lots of photos, Jeremy...but mostly > blamed on photoshop. So-called "experts" claiming that ghost pictures are fake. Outrageous. Probably a conspiracy.
I think if ghosts really were out there, then given the number of people who carry phones with cameras, I'd expect the amount of "evidence" to have shot through the roof. But it hasn't. Same applies for UFOs, poltergeists, miracle healings, etc.
???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To Elephant & Castle on train (10 mins?) then > Bakerloo to Piccadilly Circus (10 mins) then walk > - Shaftesbury Avenue isn't that long (maybe > another 10 mins) Add 10 mins to walk down to the tube at E&C. Problem is that Thameslink is unreliable, infrequent, and can get very very crowded.
Lazero Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Appears that northern line to overground (off at > Clapham North walk to Clapham High street) is an option That would be my suggestion. If the trains ever return to a half decent service (i.e. useable frequency to LB, and LB to CX service reinstated), then that would be my preferred route. Never the bus!
While I'd be theoretically supportive of a Lab/LibDem/SNP (hell even the bloody Greens) coalition in government, on a shared manifesto point of reversing Brexit, we need to remember that we're talking about politicians. With the amount of back-stabbing, bickering and scheming that goes on internally within a party, can you imagine FOUR of them cooperating in government?
DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > or owner-occupied (taking one more > potential renter out of the rental market Maybe... IMO there will always be a strong demand for rental properties in London. Obviously a good number of these are people who would like to buy but can't afford to, but many are renting for other reasons.
So you can't even queue up in the morning and get an appointment any more? Or book an appointment over the phone (no matter how far ahead?) The only system is to phone up, sit around all day waiting for a call back, then find out whether they're going to let you see a doctor or not?
SLad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, we can afford it because it comes from the > income we get on the flat... Yes I understand that, I'm glad your flat will continue to be self-sustainable. But for those that won't... yes they can sell - and they will. Then surely less supply = higher rent, so tenants will also lose out here. No?
SLad... it's easy to say "I'm happy to pay the extra tax" if you can afford it... but many won't. Not saying landlords deserve sympathy here (let alone charity donations), but this is bad news for both landlords and tenants. Hopefully potential buyers will see the upside of all this. But despite the obvious anti-landlord rhetoric, private rental does serve a purpose.
It used to be the case that you could buy a property, and the rental income would cover mortgage interest and repayments, AND you'd have enough left to cover your income tax. Maybe you still can in some areas - or even in London if you have a huge deposit? But I don't think it's the norm... rental yields are very tight these days.
I always thought Blair achieved some good things. Education and NHS spending increased under him. Low unemployment, low inflation. Good Friday agreement. Child and pensioner poverty fell. Shame about the war. And the lying about the war.
Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can see that we have more options (short > walk/bus journey to Denmark Hill/Herne > Hill/Peckham Rye depending on where in ED you > live), along with the 40 bus; but those options > are already at capacity and are unlikely to cope > well with next week's cancellations. Yep, I'm not saying that the alternatives are OK... just suggesting that perhaps that's why Govia chose to hit metro routes disproportionately.
Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On which point, I'm guessing they've picked on > South London because our fares are the lowest in > their network and the cheapest to reimburse / > compensate thus protecting their revenues from > more lucrative stations further afield? Partly that. Objectively, you could say that we have other options (combinations of bus/walk/tube/overground/thameslink), so lower priority than suburbs where you literally have no other option. Not that this is a valid excuse of course.