 | Forum
Reply | Underfloor bathroom heating
at 14:48 27 Jun 2025
About 25(?) years ago we moved into a house where the previous owner had started renovating the bathroom, then gave up.
We got a painter/decorator in, who also did tiling, to finish the job.
We wanted a tiled floor, but were worried it would be too cold. Eventually he came up with this underfloor system, a bit like an electric blanket, which you laid under the tiles. (Think it might have been Scandinavian - maybe Finnish? - and fairly new to UK; certainly none of us had ever seen one before)
There was no socket in the bathroom (obv), so he drilled a tiny hole in the skirting board through to the bedroom next door to use a socket there, while he dropped the transformer(?) out of the way under the floorboards.
Brilliant job, easy to install and can't have been expensive to run (few pence a day?), since we kept it on permanently during the cooler months, when as well as the floor, it also kept the bathroom nice and warm on its own. (Switched off in summer).
Anyhow, apologies if the technology has all been superceded since then, but I'd thoroughly recommend something like this. |
| Forum
Reply | Martin lewis
at 17:34 20 Jun 2025
Eh?
Here verbatim is EXACTLY what you said in the post to which I was responding:
"In the 5th/6th richest country in the world our public services are more like those in a 3rd world country."
So absolutely no "twisting" needed.
P.S. If you tell me that our public services could/should be better than they are, then you'll get no argument from me. But I've been to many 3rd world countries, in different continents, and your comparison bears no relation to anything I've seen.
https://i0.wp.com/asiatimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/India-Indian-Railway-
[Post edited 20 Jun 17:43]
|
| Forum
Reply | Martin lewis
at 23:47 19 Jun 2025
I'm not arguing that public ownership is better/worse than private ownership. Though I happily accept that the way the current privatisation was done was very defective in many ways.
But history tells us that Nationalisation had many problems too. In very crude terms, successive governments found it very hard to manage, since the Unions, big donors the Labour Party, had them by the short stuff, leading to high wages and overstaffing etc.
While the Tories were no better i.e. they crumbled at the threat of a strike, since angry commuters (majority Tory voters, esp in the SE) and Industry wouldn't tolerate the disruption.
Keeping fares low was also a priority (those pesky voters again), even when the railways were making increasing losses and needed greater fare income.
And as regards investment, governments of both parties, when under financial pressure, invariably concentrate on operating costs, at the expense of long term infrastructure spending. This is made worse by the fact that the Minister who announces a new investment project and writes the cheque, is pretty much guaranteed not to be in post to cut the tape and get the credit when it finally opens up some years later. In fact his Party may not even be in government.
Which all means that by the time of Privatisation, the network was in a terrible state. Hence their desire of the government to get the railways off their hands at any cost.
Which, I repeat, is not to say that Privatisation is a magic solution either - it was clearly heavily flawed, but don't imagine that Nationalisation must work either.
And if you need proof of that, you only need to look at the total fiasco, scandal even, that is HS2 - a Government project, remember. |
| Forum
Reply | Martin lewis
at 23:19 19 Jun 2025
That's a fair enough stance to take, whether I agree with all of it or not.
One minor point - we're NOT the "5th/6th richest country in the world", in fact we're not even the 5th/6th richest in Western Europe.
Many people repeat this canard, when in fact we're the 5th/6th biggest economy in the world. ("Richest" is measured by income per capita) |
| Forum
Reply | Martin lewis
at 18:00 19 Jun 2025
Other countries put a whole lot more into their trains than we do. Meaning that if we were prepared to put even more money into our train system than we presently do, then we'd have a better service.
Now I'm not saying we should or shouldn't, but as the old saying goes: "You pays your money, you makes your choice"
Two further points occur: I'm old enough to remember when rail was nationalised and I can tell you that it was bloody awful - at best a national joke (remember the Morecambe & Wise running gag about BR catering, or Reggie Perrin's daily commute?). And at worst, it was a scandal. Then again, as the man says, 'Nostalgia ain't what it used to be'.
Second, the railways now carry twice as many passengers as in the days of (nationalised) BR. And if they couldn't provide a decent service then, how would they have managed today? |
| Forum
Reply | Martin lewis
at 17:36 19 Jun 2025
Leaving aside the fact that not all offpeak fares to NCL/EDI cost that much - peak fares certainly do - it's not that simple.
First, to get fares down to compete with the budget airlines would take yet further subsidy, on top of what's already being handed over.
And second there the question of capacity. With those fares, demand would shoot up and the present rail lines couldn't cope. As it is, our trunk routes are already full to capacity, meaning the only way you could meet demand would be to take freight trains off the system, which would then only see our motorways even more congested.
All of which reflects that aside from the Channel Tunnel Link (HS1), this country hasn't built a new trunk railway route since Victoria times. And considering we only invented the bloody railways, why should this be?
A major reason is that during all those decades when the railways were nationalised, successive governments baulked at the massive investment needed for such major infrastructure, which would need to be spent before any returns came in (fares etc).
(It is notable that HS1 only got built because Thatcher insisted the British half be built with private investment. And although the line now makes a small operating profit, I believe the original investors all lost their socks on the building of ir.) |
| Forum
Reply | Martin lewis
at 17:20 19 Jun 2025
They make profits - but only after receiving massive HMG subsidy. This report on Rail Industry Finance for Apr23 to Mar24 states:
"Total income for the operational rail industry was £25.4 billion. Adjusted for inflation this is an increase of 5.7% compared with the previous year. This consisted of £12.5 billion from government funding, £11.0 billion from passenger operators (£10.4 billion of fares and £0.7 billion of other operator income), and £1.9 billion from other sources."
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/finance/rail-industry-finance/
Now it's a whole different argument as to whether HMG should be paying these subsidies (they'd argue that it's still cheaper and more efficient than if nationalised, I'll not go into that). But in the end, if private companies weren't getting these subsidies they wouldn't make a profit. And if they weren't making a profit, they'd pull out (In fact I think some already have).
As for your "no need to be a subsidy of priced right", seeing as the subsidy amounts to half the operators' revenue, without it, fares would need to double.
Alternatively, if redirected that £12bn - that's twelve thousand million pounds for one year - would go a long way towards providing free buses for everyone in the UK, I'd imagine. (Not suggesting that either, btw)
EDIT: Just seen Kensal's post, above. [Post edited 19 Jun 17:23]
|
| Forum
Reply | Martin lewis
at 13:02 19 Jun 2025
Of course transport should be a basic public service and I doubt it could ever make a profit, even if you tried for one.
But in the end it incurs a cost, which someone has to pay. In the context of London, people often complain about the cost of commuting in and out of the city - fair enough.
But in doing so, they invariably mean the cost of train fares, and demand that these be subsidised. But this subsidy comes out of the taxes paid by the general population, most of whom don't commute, with many of them poor enough as it is.
Worse still, train commuters generally earn more than other commuters, all the more so in the South East of England, where wages are higher in the rest of the country.
And UK-wide, far more workers commute by bus than do so by train and are generally poorer paid. Yet we don't hear the same clamour for bus subsidies that we do for trains. |
| Forum
Reply | London / Cockney slang
at 12:51 19 Jun 2025
According to Ikiw, some backslang terms have been adopted in standard English, eg Yob for Boy. |
| Forum
Reply | How about a few “not a lot of people know thats”
at 12:41 19 Jun 2025
So, "a polemic ode to Anti-Thatcherism" was it?
Don't tell me, the 'Birdie Song' was a protest against worldwide species extinction, and 'Lily The Pink' was a hymn in praise of the contribution made by women in Soviet Russia towards the struggle for a worldwide Communist utopia.
Aye, right. |
| Forum
Reply | Martin lewis
at 21:30 18 Jun 2025
Thank you for the tip, Stow - should save me a few quid watching Brentford next season.
Meanwhile, if you have (free) bus pass issued by an authority outside London (County Council or whatever), you can use this to travel free on London buses, too.
(Not sure if it applies at peak times, but definitely off-peak and weekends etc) |
| Forum
Reply | How about a few “not a lot of people know thats”
at 19:31 18 Jun 2025
The "fez" made famous by Tommy Cooper should more properly be called a tarbouche.
Cooper first came across it when he was in the army in WWII and posted to Egypt. Some years later he happened to be in Egypt again and when he saw a market stall selling them, unprompted the stallholder suddenly went "Just Like That!"
"Why did you say that?", asked Tommy.
"Because every British person who comes here always says that", came the reply. "Except you".
Btw, when Tommy was in the army, he was in a cavalry regiment. Which meant he was "Trooper Cooper" - yep, he was funny even when not trying. |
| Forum
Reply | How about a few “not a lot of people know thats”
at 19:17 18 Jun 2025
I always assumed scrote was just an abbreviation of scrotum, but they probably wouldn't have got away with the full version. Or ballbag. [Post edited 18 Jun 19:19]
|
| Forum
Reply | Soccer in the US
at 13:31 17 Jun 2025
I despise Trump and his mob, but I've been to sh1thole countries run by far worse than Trump to watch football before, so that alone wouldn't deter me. Besides which, ordinary Americans are fine, as I've found on my many visits to USA.
Though at the risk of being charged with double standards , I would admit there are some countries I'd still not visit, incl Saudi Arabia 2034. But even there, that is as much a protest about the way that State is "buying" football for its own selfish sportswashing strategy, as it is for its (utterly vile) politics.
And the want of a beer after the game  |
| Forum
Reply | Soccer in the US
at 13:22 17 Jun 2025
Having been to a couple of stadia in USA, I'm sure all of that is very true.
But imo that alone isn't likely to put anyone off, for even if overseas fans are aware of it in advance (not all will be), in the end, if you're considering spending bundles and travelling thousands of miles to see your NT in the USA in the first place, a few hours inconvenience on 3 or 4 matchdays during your two or three week trip/holiday is unlikely to be a deal breaker. |
| Forum
Reply | Soccer in the US
at 13:13 17 Jun 2025
The FA aren't in the habit of bribin.... er, making generous donations to Infantino's favourite charities, that's why.
While more generally, FIFA and the rest of the Confederations hate/fear/envy UEFA, so will do everything they can to keep Europe in its place - see eg the overblown Club World Cup, where FIFA are now intruding into club football, to counter the growth/popularity/revenue UEFA gets from the CL. |
| Forum
Reply | Deeply unfashionable things that are…not bad, actually
at 23:18 15 Jun 2025
I was coming through the airport sometime last year, I needed a watch because the strap on my old cheapo job was bust and couldn't be repaired, even by Timpson's finest.
Spotted the watch concession store, went in and approx 4 mins later came our with a brand new, £50 Sekonda - half price in a sale at £25!
And you know what? It tells the time, the same time as every other fekker with a three hundred? three grand? thirty grand? watch on his wrist, with none of the worry that some arse will try to snatch it.
And if anyone is worried about me financing Putin's assault on Ukraine with my purchase, the brand was bought years ago, by a British company, who get their watches made in Hong Kong - the original home of good quality, low-cost quartz watches.
Oh and btw, the only reason I spent 4 minutes in the concession was because the woman spotted my football badge and spent a couple of minutes chatting about that, while taking my twenty five quid - time flies, eh? |
| Forum
Reply | The QPR summer managers rumours thread
at 13:23 6 Jun 2025
Gattuso? Was said to be in the frame for the Spurs job (after Mourinho was sacked). Then this:
"Gennaro Gattuso has revealed his regret over missing out on the Tottenham job and his disappointment over the fierce backlash he faced from supporters.
Spurs turned to former Italy midfielder Gattuso after missing out on several other candidates in their search for a new manager earlier this summer.
However, fans strongly opposed the move due to controversial comments previously made by Gattuso about same-sex marriage and racism."
https://www.tntsports.co.uk/football/gennaro-gattuso-reveals-regrets-over-totten
Still, Joey Barton is currently available.... |
| | NewBee
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 511 | | Comment Votes: | 2 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 513 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.