Lets freeze rail fares?

BobQ

Are the Tories making this up as they go along now?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32245068

Who is going to fund this largess? £1.8bn out the air. At least that is what the Tory Transport Minister said last year.

How does this differ from Miliband freezing energy prices?

How many other things might they offer to to freeze? Maybe water process?

Why is that when Labour suggests price regulation of energy it is interfering with the free market, but when Cameron does it with rail fairs it is not?

Eric Pickles on the Daily Politics looked a right !!! when trying to defend this policy.

Then he moved on the Big Society, suggesting employers of more than 250 give PAID time off for volunteering employees.

Eric fielded this one two in a second car crash, first suggesting people take it from their annual leave, then saying it would be additional to annual leave. Pickles had no idea how it would be funded but the Institute of Directors were livid about the costs being a burden on business.

Pickles eventually agreed it was not a sensible policy as it was just doing what most employers do already.

They seem to be making it up as they go along.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Are the Tories making this up as they go along now?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32245068

Who is going to fund this largess? £1.8bn out the air. At least that is what the Tory Transport Minister said last year.

How does this differ from Miliband freezing energy prices?

How many other things might they offer to to freeze? Maybe water process?

Why is that when Labour suggests price regulation of energy it is interfering with the free market, but when Cameron does it with rail fairs it is not?

Eric Pickles on the Daily Politics looked a right !!! when trying to defend this policy.

Then he moved on the Big Society, suggesting employers of more than 250 give PAID time off for volunteering employees.

Eric fielded this one two in a second car crash, first suggesting people take it from their annual leave, then saying it would be additional to annual leave. Pickles had no idea how it would be funded but the Institute of Directors were livid about the costs being a burden on business.

Pickles eventually agreed it was not a sensible policy as it was just doing what most employers do already.

They seem to be making it up as they go along.

we are in the period just before an election

anyway always better to judge people/parties on what they do and not on what they say

michaels

So volunteering paid for by big companies is a bad thing?

You can not see the difference between making private energy suppliers risk bankruptcy if wholesale energy prices change and adjusting the subsidy paid to train operating companies to freeze ticket prices?

(Although of course it is a silly populist policy which involves giving to commuters who are generally richer than average and taking from taxpayers who may well be very poor)

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

They seem to be making it up as they go along.

Have you only just noticed?

chewmylegoff

michaels wrote: »

So volunteering paid for by big companies is a bad thing?

You can not see the difference between making private energy suppliers risk bankruptcy if wholesale energy prices change and adjusting the subsidy paid to train operating companies to freeze ticket prices?

(Although of course it is a silly populist policy which involves giving to commuters who are generally richer than average and taking from taxpayers who may well be very poor)

My experience of large employers both public and private is that they already offer more than the statutory minimum holiday allowance. I assume they will therefore just say that if you want to take 3 days of your extra statutory holiday to do some volunteering then that's your choice.

Nikkster

chewmylegoff wrote: »

My experience of large employers both public and private is that they already offer more than the statutory minimum holiday allowance. I assume they will therefore just say that if you want to take 3 days of your extra statutory holiday to do some volunteering then that's your choice.

My (private) employer offers up to five days of volunteering leave per year. The first two are 'free' and for the remaining three they match annual leave used for volunteering. It is positively encouraged and last year there were specific activities arranged (e.g. redecorating a scout hut) to use up peoples' volunteering leave (though you can also choose your own volunteering activities, within reason).

Edit: how about 'Help to Rent' though?! !!!!!!??

BobQ

michaels wrote: »

So volunteering paid for by big companies is a bad thing?

You can not see the difference between making private energy suppliers risk bankruptcy if wholesale energy prices change and adjusting the subsidy paid to train operating companies to freeze ticket prices?

(Although of course it is a silly populist policy which involves giving to commuters who are generally richer than average and taking from taxpayers who may well be very poor)

Volunteering paid for by firms with as few as 250 staff is not a bad thing but had Labour suggested this the Tories would lave said it was loading costs on businesses as the Institute of Directors spokesman observed.

I agree there is a difference between the two cases but it is still interfering with the market. In the case of Rail, this Government started by claiming that price increases were needed to transfer the burden from tax paper subsidy to the consumer. Now it increasing the subsidy and having to find the money from elsewhere. PIckles had no idea where.

As you say it is a subsidy to the mainly wealthy SE and rural train users.

Nikkster

BobQ wrote: »

Volunteering paid for by firms with as few as 250 staff is not a bad thing but had Labour suggested this the Tories would lave said it was loading costs on businesses as the Institute of Directors spokesman observed.

Is this part of 'Big Society'? Maybe it'll help with the austerity drive if we can all volunteer to e.g. collect rubbish/ be special constables/ process tax returns etc.

I'm sure I caught a soundbite from DC proclaiming that volunteering has risen during this parliament. Not sure whether it's because we've become more generous or some other reason (or indeed whether it's true).

BobQ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

My experience of large employers both public and private is that they already offer more than the statutory minimum holiday allowance. I assume they will therefore just say that if you want to take 3 days of your extra statutory holiday to do some volunteering then that's your choice.

This was part of Pickles confusion. Was it just legal regulation of what most employers do in any case? If so was there any more voluntary work going to take place. Then he started talking about annual leave paying for it, then additional annual leave.

Spidernick

This 'freezing' will be an increase based on RPI, whereas any money the government gives out is based on the (currently) lower CPI. This is not a freeze by any stretch of the imagination!

the_flying_pig

BobQ wrote: »

Are the Tories making this up as they go along now?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32245068

Who is going to fund this largess? £1.8bn out the air. At least that is what the Tory Transport Minister said last year.

How does this differ from Miliband freezing energy prices?

How many other things might they offer to to freeze? Maybe water process?

Why is that when Labour suggests price regulation of energy it is interfering with the free market, but when Cameron does it with rail fairs it is not?

...

Government started by claiming that price increases were needed to transfer the burden from tax paper subsidy to the consumer. Now it increasing the subsidy and having to find the money from elsewhere. PIckles had no idea where.

As you say it is a subsidy to the mainly wealthy SE and rural train users.

i've not the foggiest idea about what the net costs & benefits of this tory idea to freeze rail fares might be, but i will make a couple of points:

on rail vs. energy & other utilities

rail is unlike energy in that energy's a [cough] competitive market in which consumers have a [cough] choice of suppliers - rail franchises are deliberately set up to as monopolies, with prices that are therefore rightly regulated in those cases where customers have no choice [e.g. pretty much all commuter travel into london].

also, government's dibs are all over everything to do with rail...rail companies are basically contractors wot government outsources the provision of certain services to. the laws & systems for price regulation are all already in place, not like with energy where there'd need to be a new Bill in parliament [with inevitable appeals about the human rights of british gas to fleece britain's pensioners etc] giving government the right to tell wholly private companies what they could & could not do;

on this as a piece of 'social' policy

2) as you say rail users tend to be richer than the average person, but it can still be a really huge expense for people who are dependant on it... for commuting into london we're talking on average north of £3k p.a. on average, per person, that is real, real, money [even for someone who's well paid], and far more than even a huge family would spend on all the other 'utilities' combined. 'rail poverty' isn't as intuitively appealing an issue as say fuel poverty, but for average & especially below average earners in the SE it's very real.