• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

galeforce said:
great

except that the required infrastructure improvements and staffing realignment will cost far more than any profit made

we've got a reckoning coming with the railways in this country and in my opinion full privatisation has a far better chance of fixing it than nationalisation
Click to expand...

required infrastructure improvements and staffing realignment will cost will need to be paid for regardless who is running it -

we've got a reckoning coming with the railways in this country and in my opinion full nationalisation has a far better chance of fixing it than leaving private.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Well I stand corrected on that, though remembering the days of British rail, i dont fancy it or buy the idea the tories under invested in them.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sold that the Tories underinvest in public services before pointing to the fact they are not working and being sold off - they are doing it now with Prisons, Schools and NHS.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Yeh the Tories plan is 100% to sell of the NHS, no doubt about that
Click to expand...

Underfund a state owned entity, then when it starts to fail, blame the state and put forward the solution of privatisation -- especially if the state can subsidise the newly privatised company with public money.

Has this ever happened before? :D

As the saying goes "It's the Ideology, stupid!"
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Are you saying it's the fragmented privatisation that causes a barrier to a successful railway network and given complete privatisation it would all be rosy?

Making profit is the problem here. Personally I don't think the railways should be exposed to that need. It is an essential service. That service is vital to so many in work and daily life and by continuation the country. I'd be quite happy for it to be subsidised (if necessary) as long as it is run efficiently and effectively and not in that 'don't worry the govt will pick up the tab' mentality. ie top talent from the private sector running a nationalised railway. The French do ok at it. Get control of ticket prices and also build into any national projects the aim to get more freight on to the railways.

And heck......we might even turn a profit.
Click to expand...

i'm saying the cost is too prohibitive to be done from the public purse, the barriers to success are limits on fare pricing and minimum service levels

r-u-s-x said:
required infrastructure improvements and staffing realignment will cost will need to be paid for regardless who is running it -

we've got a reckoning coming with the railways in this country and in my opinion full nationalisation has a far better chance of fixing it than leaving private.
Click to expand...

whatever state the railways are in now they were far worse in the "good old" BR days

all just imo of course
 
galeforce said:
i'm saying the cost is too prohibitive to be done from the public purse, the barriers to success are limits on fare pricing and minimum service levels



whatever state the railways are in now they were far worse in the "good old" BR days

all just imo of course
Click to expand...

And I am sure that there was no wilful under-investment with a view to seeing them privatised.
 
galeforce said:
i'm saying the cost is too prohibitive to be done from the public purse, the barriers to success are limits on fare pricing and minimum service levels



whatever state the railways are in now they were far worse in the "good old" BR days

all just imo of course
Click to expand...
Disregarding the possibility of underinvestment during the "good old" BR days when seeing what can be done with a nationalized service I do not look to the past to compare but how other countries are achieving this now. I don't see the UK as exceptional when comparing to similar economies.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Disregarding the possibility of underinvestment during the "good old" BR days when seeing what can be done with a nationalized service I do not look to the past to compare but how other countries are achieving this now. I don't see the UK as exceptional when comparing to similar economies.
Click to expand...

its the getting from where we are to where they are without bankrupting the country in the process I can't fathom, there is a lot of new rolling stock on the network which would have to be purchased by the govt and many of the franchises are still in contract, some of them for another 10 years or so, what would it cost to buy them out?
 
galeforce said:
its the getting from where we are to where they are without bankrupting the country in the process I can't fathom, there is a lot of new rolling stock on the network which would have to be purchased by the govt and many of the franchises are still in contract, some of them for another 10 years or so, what would it cost to buy them out?
Click to expand...
they have no intention on buying out the franchises in contract but not renewing them, there would be the argument that this would mean current franchises would then stop investing however I would hope the contracts would be water tight to prevent this.

http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/rail
"Routes will naturally return to public ownership as private contracts expire, meaning profits can be re-invested to improve services & hold fares down."

Cost of rolling stock would need to be purchased I agree however new rolling stock would need to be paid for regardless private or public - I am not convinced private has done this any more efficiently than public.
 
One of the biggest factors is the cynical nature of the UK public and their view to tax, and the government know it.

For example Essex FireBrigade out forward a plan and asked people if it meant safe jobs and a good well run fire phalanx would people pay £5 a month tax to ensure if it was put into another slush fund that guaranteed where the money went, 40% bothered responding and under half said they would.

I am in the camp of paying a little more to guarantee the success of certain services because I think its a worthy cause. For me its simple, we are in debt and we need assistance, we come together and work out of it as a nation or we carry on moaning.
 
r-u-s-x said:
they have no intention on buying out the franchises in contract but not renewing them, there would be the argument that this would mean current franchises would then stop investing however I would hope the contracts would be water tight to prevent this.

http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/rail
"Routes will naturally return to public ownership as private contracts expire, meaning profits can be re-invested to improve services & hold fares down."

Cost of rolling stock would need to be purchased I agree however new rolling stock would need to be paid for regardless private or public - I am not convinced private has done this any more efficiently than public.
Click to expand...

is something that would take 3 parliament to complete and have such great financial cost a realistic aim at this time?
 
galeforce said:
is something that would take 3 parliament to complete and have such great financial cost a realistic aim at this time?
Click to expand...
You can apply that to anything, hs2/trident etc.

Improvements will need to be paid for by the public either way, so the argument is who offers greater value private with greater borrowing costs and need for profits or nationalised less efficient? And costs recognised up front
 
Maybe already mentioned but I can't trawl pages of stuff to see.

How is it democratic for the DUP to strike a deal on a Vote share: 0.91% Vote total: 292,316 Seats: 10? I fail to see where this works? I also fear the IRA on this now, we are in bed with their total enemies, this is gonna be a mess
 
Grays_1890 said:
Maybe already mentioned but I can't trawl pages of stuff to see.

How is it democratic for the DUP to strike a deal on a Vote share: 0.91% Vote total: 292,316 Seats: 10? I fail to see where this works? I also fear the IRA on this now, we are in bed with their total enemies, this is gonna be a mess
Click to expand...
I have made my views on FPTP a few times - same with SNP with 3% of votes get 35 seats and Lib dems with 7.4 get 12 (Tories with 2.4% more vote share get 56 more seats than Labour). However, for the Union to be successful we have to give the other members a disproportionate number of seats, very rarely do we see "tail wagging the dog" in the UK, this is meant to be the strength of FPTP.
 
galeforce said:
its the getting from where we are to where they are without bankrupting the country in the process I can't fathom, there is a lot of new rolling stock on the network which would have to be purchased by the govt and many of the franchises are still in contract, some of them for another 10 years or so, what would it cost to buy them out?
Click to expand...
And where are we with the railways atm?.....in your opinion?
 
r-u-s-x said:
I have made my views on FPTP a few times - same with SNP with 3% of votes get 35 seats and Lib dems with 7.4 get 12 (Tories with 2.4% more vote share get 56 more seats than Labour). However, for the Union to be successful we have to give the other members a disproportionate number of seats, very rarely do we see "tail wagging the dog" in the UK, this is meant to be the strength of FPTP.
Click to expand...

But if DUP pull out dont we go back to the polls, having that power on 300,000 votes seems mental.

Also the fact they are backed for a terrorist organisation who killed someone weeks ago is pretty mental
 
Grays_1890 said:
But if DUP pull out dont we go back to the polls, having that power on 300,000 votes seems mental.

Also the fact they are backed for a terrorist organisation who killed someone weeks ago is pretty mental
Click to expand...
yep - there were three realistic options open - coalition with DUP, form a minority government (with the likelihood that DUP will vote with them most of the time) or another election.

its all pretty mental, this will make it harder to attack Corbyn in the future (terrorist sympathies).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back