And among all the bad news, some good

I've never paid above £35 for returns from the Leeds area to London - sometimes much less. And I've always found the service reliable and comfortable.

I think the problem is more with overcrowded, overpriced commuter trains.

I believe I have mentioned this previously , it costs us £31 return and that includes getting from Liverpool Street [underground] to Euston and then of course the return.

Has to be the bargain of the century. When I think how much it would cost for fuel , plus the wear and tear on the car .

really could not be bettered .[[

I'd love it if I could afford to use it ...

We are totally fine with the rail service we get when we go to the Midlands .

On time , very cheap and good service .

We love it.

And the fact that British Rail was inefficient was used as the excuse to break it up and give Britain the chaotic rail system it has now when a franchise is given for a limited number of years. Of course, the franchisee is not going to invest in the sytem as the end of the franchise becomes near, in case they would be simply improving things for somebody else. Some people made huge killings out of privatisation but I doubt whether many 'customers' would say they are better off in terms of price, punctuality or reliability. And when there is a crash, nobody is willing to accept responsibility.
Similarly, if local authority employees were not working efficiently the answer was to put in better managers, not contract out services to the lowest bidder - we have seen what has happened to hospital cleaning services.
The saying used to be 'cherchez la femme', but my mantra is 'follow the money' and usually there will be somebody with the power to influence decisions who is not disinterested in the outcome.

There undoubtedly have been and continue to be abuses of power in the EU and there appear to be several bones of contention, not least of which is the issue of lack of proper financial accountability - MEP expenses, etc.

However, I still think that the EU has introduced many good things, not least of which is helping less developed countries to improve their infrastructure, and improving standards all round.

I can't understand why it is necessary to completely ditch something that is imperfect rather than try to put right what isn't working.

The same reasoning was used for the massive and worrying changes to the NHS - some things aren't working properly so let's turn everything upside down and make huge changes (though my own view is that this was just a convenient excuse for introducing privatisation by the back door).

Why not just monitor things properly and hold to account those people that abuse the system?

UKIP takes us out of EU. Scotland votes for independence. Little remainsofBritain indeed.
It's interesting to be spending a little time outside the EU and notice some of the differences here in Australia. e.g.
No independent regulation (as far as I can see) of things like drinking water and bathing water quality.
Each state within Australia having a different set of regulations for so many things. e.g. a teacher qualified in one state not allowed to work in another. Plumbing methods and fittings different.
We tend to take the benefits of the EU for granted I think.

Judging from what Nigel Farage said on AM this morning, he does realise that he can no longer say that we need eg 3 railway lines without proper costing. He wants out of the EU, stop foreign financial aid to countries such as India and reduce immigration of course. He has around 18 months to get together a manifesto which will be costed properly and be believeable.
At least there was no mention of the BNP this time. It will be interesting to see if the London voters vote for UKIP next year.

We had a referendum in 1975, about staying in Europe. Then, it was sold to us as a market economy for trading and collective support with fishing, agriculture and standards for food production, employment and freedom within a union that would arbitrate over fairness and the interests of the people of those countries who had joined. If something resembling those original aims was recognisable now, UKIP would not have been born. Farage has gained inside knowledge as an MEP and plays on the negative aspects of the EU, the barmy decisions that affect us adversely, and talks up the theoretical potential for an influx of new members from poor countries to mop up the last of the UK's resources. At least his clown image, and references to England's green and pleasant and are benign in comparison with BNP's racism, but it's all smoke and mirrors!

My suspicion of UKIP is based on their way of presenting themselves as the respectable face of a BNP-type "little Britain" party. It is easy to be against something but harder to say what you are for. Liminetta's comment "UKIP has something that ordinary people agree with, as shown in the last elections. " has a sinister ring to it - I can think of previous occasions in history where "ordinary people" have voted with policies which have grown out of control and swept nations into disaster.

Haven't we already had a referendum on leaving/staying in Europe? If so surely we can't just keep having them until we get the 'supposedly' correct answer? There are several houses roundabouts that used to have BNP posters in their window; I may have a shufty round to see if they have been replaced by UKIP ones...

Even Farage had to admit that some of their candidates come across as being rather odd, to put it politely.

What UKIP stands for is idle promises - they have no idea how they might fund these.

Good news that the BNP is now losing the little ground it had. I don't see UKIP getting that far, but as a party that is managing to get a few valid points across, like the need to regain some control from the EU, they certainly are repesenting a collective voice across all political spectrums. But then, so are the campaigning groups like Avaaz and 38 Degrees who use the internet to garner support and confront politcians. Nigel Farage is another Boris - a jolly good fellow who gets local support, but would be useless as a national leader. But, thanks to UKIP for enticing votes away from the BNP.

Hmm!, suppose the eu is rather like marriage. For better or worse!

If anyone wants the UK to leave the EU, as do UKIP, they should be able to give a reasoned analysis of the economic pros and cons and the possible impacts that loosing our current trading status with the EU would have on the United Kingdoms economy.

Or forever hold their peace!

Liminetta - can you tell me what they do believe in, other than withdrawing from the EU? I think that what most people will have latched on to is their take on immigration. It is always easy to appeal to what some people see as their self interest or to prejudice.

greatnan; why do you think Ukip is scary?I,me glad that the other parties are challenged; their manifesto is not sufficiently developed(hope Ime using the correct terminology here), but UKIP has something that ordinary people agree with, as shown in the last elections.

Yes, that is good news,but I fear many of their former supporters will have changed to the almost equally scary UKIP.