LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I’m generally for it.
Natural monopolies are not particularly well served by private enterprise but as the article alludes to, stagnation and lack of innovation is a risk.
I think the key to avoid stagnation is to properly incentivise management to deliver measurable cost benefits (savings or roi) so that good leaders and innovation are rewarded.
This to me is preferable to shareholders simply bleeding dividends out of a monopoly where there is no risk.0 -
It's not as clear cut to call it a monopoly. It should be competing with other forms of transport. This is something British Rail didn't do, but privatisation has done as shown in the graph above.morstar said:I’m generally for it.
Natural monopolies are not particularly well served by private enterprise but as the article alludes to, stagnation and lack of innovation is a risk.
I think the key to avoid stagnation is to properly incentivise management to deliver measurable cost benefits (savings or roi) so that good leaders and innovation are rewarded.
This to me is preferable to shareholders simply bleeding dividends out of a monopoly where there is no risk.
Of course, commuters in SE don't think they have alternatives, so it is as a service.0 -
Having read a bit more, you and PB are correct. For once a new initiative is actually new(ish).Pross said:
Not really, trains are now back under Government control too with private companies just being contracted to provide the trains themselves as I understand it (not sure who the train staff will work for though).rjsterry said:
That's just rebranding the Network Rail, no? The infrastructure is already publicly owned.pblakeney said:Blue socialism takes another leap. Corbyn will be chuffed. Who knew losing an election could still result in your manifesto being implemented?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
On paper it sounds like a good plan with talk of more flexible fares and a contactless system like the Oyster card (presumably ensuring you always pay the cheapest relevant fee).1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Notice that the proposed company has got 'Great British' in the name to keep the flag wavers happy but it actually only applies to England (the Welsh Government has already set up Transport for Wales that took over operating most services a few years ago).rjsterry said:
Having read a bit more, you and PB are correct. For once a new initiative is actually new(ish).Pross said:
Not really, trains are now back under Government control too with private companies just being contracted to provide the trains themselves as I understand it (not sure who the train staff will work for though).rjsterry said:
That's just rebranding the Network Rail, no? The infrastructure is already publicly owned.pblakeney said:Blue socialism takes another leap. Corbyn will be chuffed. Who knew losing an election could still result in your manifesto being implemented?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
On paper it sounds like a good plan with talk of more flexible fares and a contactless system like the Oyster card (presumably ensuring you always pay the cheapest relevant fee).0 -
Sounds like a bad idea to me, but I know I will be alone with that opinion.rjsterry said:
Having read a bit more, you and PB are correct. For once a new initiative is actually new(ish).Pross said:
Not really, trains are now back under Government control too with private companies just being contracted to provide the trains themselves as I understand it (not sure who the train staff will work for though).rjsterry said:
That's just rebranding the Network Rail, no? The infrastructure is already publicly owned.pblakeney said:Blue socialism takes another leap. Corbyn will be chuffed. Who knew losing an election could still result in your manifesto being implemented?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
On paper it sounds like a good plan with talk of more flexible fares and a contactless system like the Oyster card (presumably ensuring you always pay the cheapest relevant fee).0 -
Something needed doing. The whole ticketing and pricing structure was ridiculous which seemed to be mainly down to the network being run by numerous different franchises. Whether this is the best solution or not remains to be seen but we really need an integrated network (and preferably integrated with other modes of transport as well).TheBigBean said:
Sounds like a bad idea to me, but I know I will be alone with that opinion.rjsterry said:
Having read a bit more, you and PB are correct. For once a new initiative is actually new(ish).Pross said:
Not really, trains are now back under Government control too with private companies just being contracted to provide the trains themselves as I understand it (not sure who the train staff will work for though).rjsterry said:
That's just rebranding the Network Rail, no? The infrastructure is already publicly owned.pblakeney said:Blue socialism takes another leap. Corbyn will be chuffed. Who knew losing an election could still result in your manifesto being implemented?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
On paper it sounds like a good plan with talk of more flexible fares and a contactless system like the Oyster card (presumably ensuring you always pay the cheapest relevant fee).0 -
I am trying to avoid a kneejerk response and say this is just a utopian dream so will instead enquire as to whether there are any examples of where this has successfully worked so that we can use it as a template?morstar said:I’m generally for it.
Natural monopolies are not particularly well served by private enterprise but as the article alludes to, stagnation and lack of innovation is a risk.
I think the key to avoid stagnation is to properly incentivise management to deliver measurable cost benefits (savings or roi) so that good leaders and innovation are rewarded.
This to me is preferable to shareholders simply bleeding dividends out of a monopoly where there is no risk.0 -
I know we are on different pages here but to clarify, we both believe competition drives innovation and that nationalised industries are problematic.surrey_commuter said:
I am trying to avoid a kneejerk response and say this is just a utopian dream so will instead enquire as to whether there are any examples of where this has successfully worked so that we can use it as a template?morstar said:I’m generally for it.
Natural monopolies are not particularly well served by private enterprise but as the article alludes to, stagnation and lack of innovation is a risk.
I think the key to avoid stagnation is to properly incentivise management to deliver measurable cost benefits (savings or roi) so that good leaders and innovation are rewarded.
This to me is preferable to shareholders simply bleeding dividends out of a monopoly where there is no risk.
However, faux markets haven’t worked anywhere and shareholders have stripped value out of public services for little return in many cases.
Ergo we have a problem.
The solution for me is to recognise that innovation has to be encouraged and rewarded. Clear objectives around cost management, e.g. staff retention, punctuality etc. should have clearly defined incentive structures in place. Reward those that deliver.
Those tools and levers do exist in many organisations, they need to put good management in place to create them for rail.0 -
That ticketing structure increased passenger numbers because it maximised occupancy of every train and encouraged people to travel at other times. A lot of the quirks e.g. you could buy a cheap day return from London to Didcot and from Didcot to Bristol, but you couldn't from London to Bristol were hangovers from the past. Plus, if you wanted to save money that way it would mean getting on a train that stopped at Didcot - a slow one.Pross said:
Something needed doing. The whole ticketing and pricing structure was ridiculous which seemed to be mainly down to the network being run by numerous different franchises. Whether this is the best solution or not remains to be seen but we really need an integrated network (and preferably integrated with other modes of transport as well).TheBigBean said:
Sounds like a bad idea to me, but I know I will be alone with that opinion.rjsterry said:
Having read a bit more, you and PB are correct. For once a new initiative is actually new(ish).Pross said:
Not really, trains are now back under Government control too with private companies just being contracted to provide the trains themselves as I understand it (not sure who the train staff will work for though).rjsterry said:
That's just rebranding the Network Rail, no? The infrastructure is already publicly owned.pblakeney said:Blue socialism takes another leap. Corbyn will be chuffed. Who knew losing an election could still result in your manifesto being implemented?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
On paper it sounds like a good plan with talk of more flexible fares and a contactless system like the Oyster card (presumably ensuring you always pay the cheapest relevant fee).
People talk about integrated transport, but London's isn't integrated. If you get off a tube and on to a bus, you pay twice, so I don't know what the hope is other than a nationwide oyster card.
If the goal of it all means that you can walk-up and pay a reasonable price (less than £100) for a ticket from London Manchester without pre-booking, then the upshot will be fewer passengers, because all the advance fares will need to cost more. Fewer passengers will mean fewer trains and more subsidy.
Ultimately, the whole thing reminds me of football fans wanting a new manager. Popular, yes, successful, rarely.
0 -
My reason for raising the subject was not to discuss whether it was a good idea or not, the reason was the Conservatives implementing socialist Labour policy. Strange days.TheBigBean said:
Sounds like a bad idea to me, but I know I will be alone with that opinion.rjsterry said:
Having read a bit more, you and PB are correct. For once a new initiative is actually new(ish).Pross said:
Not really, trains are now back under Government control too with private companies just being contracted to provide the trains themselves as I understand it (not sure who the train staff will work for though).rjsterry said:
That's just rebranding the Network Rail, no? The infrastructure is already publicly owned.pblakeney said:Blue socialism takes another leap. Corbyn will be chuffed. Who knew losing an election could still result in your manifesto being implemented?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
On paper it sounds like a good plan with talk of more flexible fares and a contactless system like the Oyster card (presumably ensuring you always pay the cheapest relevant fee).
Crack on with the good/bad debate...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I would like to offer a ray of hope for non socialists
Last summer Eurostar shareholders asked the UK Govt for a bale out and they said no figuring even if they went bust the infrastructure would still be there and get taken over by another operator. They have raised £250m from traditional routes.0 -
Shareholders including the French government.surrey_commuter said:I would like to offer a ray of hope for non socialists
Last summer Eurostar shareholders asked the UK Govt for a bale out and they said no figuring even if they went bust the infrastructure would still be there and get taken over by another operator. They have raised £250m from traditional routes.0 -
It is not completely the same. Labour would have wanted to nationalise it completely to ensure the protection of workers' rights. The Conservatives are not worried about that aspect. They do both think that governments can meet the demands of the public better than the private sector.pblakeney said:
My reason for raising the subject was not to discuss whether it was a good idea or not, the reason was the Conservatives implementing socialist Labour policy. Strange days.TheBigBean said:
Sounds like a bad idea to me, but I know I will be alone with that opinion.rjsterry said:
Having read a bit more, you and PB are correct. For once a new initiative is actually new(ish).Pross said:
Not really, trains are now back under Government control too with private companies just being contracted to provide the trains themselves as I understand it (not sure who the train staff will work for though).rjsterry said:
That's just rebranding the Network Rail, no? The infrastructure is already publicly owned.pblakeney said:Blue socialism takes another leap. Corbyn will be chuffed. Who knew losing an election could still result in your manifesto being implemented?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
On paper it sounds like a good plan with talk of more flexible fares and a contactless system like the Oyster card (presumably ensuring you always pay the cheapest relevant fee).
Crack on with the good/bad debate...
0 -
it was an unbelievably cheeky requestTheBigBean said:
Shareholders including the French government.surrey_commuter said:I would like to offer a ray of hope for non socialists
Last summer Eurostar shareholders asked the UK Govt for a bale out and they said no figuring even if they went bust the infrastructure would still be there and get taken over by another operator. They have raised £250m from traditional routes.0 -
It's only slightly different until the privatised parts fail to meet expectations as a lot have already. Then what?TheBigBean said:
It is not completely the same. Labour would have wanted to nationalise it completely to ensure the protection of workers' rights. The Conservatives are not worried about that aspect. They do both think that governments can meet the demands of the public better than the private sector.pblakeney said:
My reason for raising the subject was not to discuss whether it was a good idea or not, the reason was the Conservatives implementing socialist Labour policy. Strange days.TheBigBean said:
Sounds like a bad idea to me, but I know I will be alone with that opinion.rjsterry said:
Having read a bit more, you and PB are correct. For once a new initiative is actually new(ish).Pross said:
Not really, trains are now back under Government control too with private companies just being contracted to provide the trains themselves as I understand it (not sure who the train staff will work for though).rjsterry said:
That's just rebranding the Network Rail, no? The infrastructure is already publicly owned.pblakeney said:Blue socialism takes another leap. Corbyn will be chuffed. Who knew losing an election could still result in your manifesto being implemented?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
On paper it sounds like a good plan with talk of more flexible fares and a contactless system like the Oyster card (presumably ensuring you always pay the cheapest relevant fee).
Crack on with the good/bad debate...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Long term demise of the railways. No government is going to put enough money in to make them run perfectly whilst also offering cheap train tickets.pblakeney said:
It's only slightly different until the privatised parts fail to meet expectations as a lot have already. Then what?TheBigBean said:
It is not completely the same. Labour would have wanted to nationalise it completely to ensure the protection of workers' rights. The Conservatives are not worried about that aspect. They do both think that governments can meet the demands of the public better than the private sector.pblakeney said:
My reason for raising the subject was not to discuss whether it was a good idea or not, the reason was the Conservatives implementing socialist Labour policy. Strange days.TheBigBean said:
Sounds like a bad idea to me, but I know I will be alone with that opinion.rjsterry said:
Having read a bit more, you and PB are correct. For once a new initiative is actually new(ish).Pross said:
Not really, trains are now back under Government control too with private companies just being contracted to provide the trains themselves as I understand it (not sure who the train staff will work for though).rjsterry said:
That's just rebranding the Network Rail, no? The infrastructure is already publicly owned.pblakeney said:Blue socialism takes another leap. Corbyn will be chuffed. Who knew losing an election could still result in your manifesto being implemented?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176858
On paper it sounds like a good plan with talk of more flexible fares and a contactless system like the Oyster card (presumably ensuring you always pay the cheapest relevant fee).
Crack on with the good/bad debate...
The more I think about it, the more foolish this plan is. The current situation is that when trains are run badly, the government gets to blame the private sector. In the future this will be the government's fault. Although, I suspect there will then be talk about wholesale changes in society and the need to promote autonomous vehicles as opposed to the backward expensive railways.
The graph I posted above should be starting point of any discussion.0 -
Roads are going to be very congested should the railways fail.
Glad I'll be old enough not to care. 😉The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
More charts and clever people examining the phenomenon I have been banging on about.
(which is why lots of people are struggling with the are the tories actually left wing bit)0 -
The railways have essentially been privatised since lockdown 1 as the Train Operating Companies (TOCS) have had to be funded director by government to keep services running. The franchise agreements were torn up.
Under this GB rail, this just formalises that arrangement, government pays them to run a service, that service is designed (timetable) and priced by GB rail. NR will come under GB rail to provide, maintain and renew the infrastructure.0 -
Yes, it's terrible. It will mean that government's will make decisions on what services need to be run and for what price. These decisions will undoubtedly be terrible. Just as they were under British Rail. Or, if you want to look at the tfl model, just the same as Sadiq Khan's bus slaying which no one interested in passenger numbers would have done.elbowloh said:The railways have essentially been privatised since lockdown 1 as the Train Operating Companies (TOCS) have had to be funded director by government to keep services running. The franchise agreements were torn up.
Under this GB rail, this just formalises that arrangement, government pays them to run a service, that service is designed (timetable) and priced by GB rail. NR will come under GB rail to provide, maintain and renew the infrastructure.0 -
-
Got nothing to say about this apart from she has a jacket with "HOME SECRETARY" on it.
0 -
He could probably get a job at British Cyclingrick_chasey said:0 -
-
I'll stick this here as it's only tangentially related to Brexit. Aussie trade twitter is enjoying the show.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Cummings seems keen to be thought of as a kingmaker.0
-
Is it not more basic? “ I woz right everyone else is wrong?”TheBigBean said:Cummings seems keen to be thought of as a kingmaker.
0
