In the late 1970s some think-tank published a paper about electoral preferences that contained both an obvious result and a non-obvious corollary of extraordinary importance:
#1 People who owned houses, cars, share-based pension accounts voted for right-wing policies more than people who rented houses, used public transport, had defined-benefit pensions.
#2 This happened regardless of the income and status level of the voters.
That is working-class people on low incomes and low status but owned however tiny a house, battered a car, small share-based pension account became ("dry") tories.
So thatcherism started to dominate politics and all government since Thatcher and Blair have been undermining "socialist" policies for social housing, for public transport, for defined benefit pensions.
Of the 3 the biggest effect on torification is from housing ownership (when prices and rents are booming), but having a car instead of using public transport also has a significant effect.
So it seems that our blogger is a socialist as he worries about "losers" who use public transport but admittedly he has an excuse: the cost of commuting to well-paid jobs in London has a huge effect on property prices along the "Midland Misery Line" and therefore on the torification of the residents.
«an excuse: the cost of commuting to well-paid jobs in London has a huge effect on property prices along the "Midland Misery Line"»
Still the proper comment about the owners of those properties would be "take personal responsibility"! If they lost the bet that good commuter train services would boost their property investment they have only themselves to blame.
Property owners who paid higher prices for their investment to have shorter/better commutes to London will object to spaffing taxpayer money (their money!) to bail out those "losers" by gifting them better commuter train services via the DfT also because this would cut the premium value of their own better located property investment in a competitive market.
Unless Network Rail has changed dramatically in the 15+ years since I worked there (which I very much doubt) that non-response regarding volunteer access actually cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds in email traffic and meetings between teams at HQ having a months-long discussion about who had the responsibility of responding to the request. The email tennis probably petered out when there was a reorganisation or a new set of strategic priorities needed to be put in a 200 page Word doc.
Shock horror. Government runs things badly. Meanwhile, National Express and Flixbus (entirely private operations that don't run with massive subsidies) are cheaper and more reliable.
Half the time First doesn’t even have hot water for tea and coffee, which is basically the only reason for paying for an upgrade. Staff are embarrassed by the service they have to offer.
On the plus side, I am able to expense my regular London trips and with the frequent delays the compensation claims are a little side hustle
How many of the decisions whose consequences you decry were taken during the period 2010-24 or are a direct result of decisions taken during that period?
In the late 1970s some think-tank published a paper about electoral preferences that contained both an obvious result and a non-obvious corollary of extraordinary importance:
#1 People who owned houses, cars, share-based pension accounts voted for right-wing policies more than people who rented houses, used public transport, had defined-benefit pensions.
#2 This happened regardless of the income and status level of the voters.
That is working-class people on low incomes and low status but owned however tiny a house, battered a car, small share-based pension account became ("dry") tories.
So thatcherism started to dominate politics and all government since Thatcher and Blair have been undermining "socialist" policies for social housing, for public transport, for defined benefit pensions.
Of the 3 the biggest effect on torification is from housing ownership (when prices and rents are booming), but having a car instead of using public transport also has a significant effect.
So it seems that our blogger is a socialist as he worries about "losers" who use public transport but admittedly he has an excuse: the cost of commuting to well-paid jobs in London has a huge effect on property prices along the "Midland Misery Line" and therefore on the torification of the residents.
«an excuse: the cost of commuting to well-paid jobs in London has a huge effect on property prices along the "Midland Misery Line"»
Still the proper comment about the owners of those properties would be "take personal responsibility"! If they lost the bet that good commuter train services would boost their property investment they have only themselves to blame.
Property owners who paid higher prices for their investment to have shorter/better commutes to London will object to spaffing taxpayer money (their money!) to bail out those "losers" by gifting them better commuter train services via the DfT also because this would cut the premium value of their own better located property investment in a competitive market.
Unless Network Rail has changed dramatically in the 15+ years since I worked there (which I very much doubt) that non-response regarding volunteer access actually cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds in email traffic and meetings between teams at HQ having a months-long discussion about who had the responsibility of responding to the request. The email tennis probably petered out when there was a reorganisation or a new set of strategic priorities needed to be put in a 200 page Word doc.
Shock horror. Government runs things badly. Meanwhile, National Express and Flixbus (entirely private operations that don't run with massive subsidies) are cheaper and more reliable.
Half the time First doesn’t even have hot water for tea and coffee, which is basically the only reason for paying for an upgrade. Staff are embarrassed by the service they have to offer.
On the plus side, I am able to expense my regular London trips and with the frequent delays the compensation claims are a little side hustle
How many of the decisions whose consequences you decry were taken during the period 2010-24 or are a direct result of decisions taken during that period?