LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
What about long buses?rick_chasey said:
Getting run over by them on the bike!!First.Aspect said:
Conservative government has explained that this will enable us to have bigger vehicles on our roads and transport less goods by train. What's not to like?rick_chasey said:Can't say I'm especially happy with longer lorries....
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Sensible tax policy has worked well for some of our esteemed EU neighbours...rjsterry said:
Perish the thought 😏Stevo_666 said:
We're past the 80s now FA...and you should be past lazy leftie sterotyping.First.Aspect said:
Thing is Stevo, this time around, there are no nationalised industries left to sell on the cheap to your mates to create the illusion of prosperity. So we kind of need someone capable of independent thought, rather than more Thatcher worshiping posh boys.Stevo_666 said:
Not so much what I was up to aged 13, more the 25% inflation, unions holding the country to ransom, censored nationalised industries, UK going cap in hand to the IMF, etcsungod said:
why?Stevo_666 said:
And we sure as hell don't want to go back there.rick_chasey said:
Yes this isn’t 1979surrey_commuter said:
What do you think they would do worse than Brexit, nationalisation, increased red tape, yo-young corp tax and record high personal taxation?Stevo_666 said:
If a Labour win is as nailed on as some people claim, then the looney left is what we should be concerned about.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Whilst I am quite content with Sunak, I find your fear of non blue rosettes to be strange as you seem to fear the very things your own side does.
in 1979 i was having a great time, the next 2-3 decades were pretty good too
But seriously, privatisation of utilities did provide a boost to the economy and right to buy did open up the option of home ownership, and Sunak or anyone else just doesn't have those options available. Clearly Stop the Boats isn't enough and is never going to happen anyway. So what then?
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/09/ireland-launch-sovereign-wealth-fund-low-taxes-pay-off/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Go on...rjsterry said:
No it's not like that either.First.Aspect said:
Well that's not the same thing. Any more than a PPE supplier is part of the NHS.rjsterry said:
Push away. The operators are now effectively government contractors.First.Aspect said:
You may get some push back on that assertion.rjsterry said:
It's publicly owned here, too. They've been re-nationalised on the quiet.First.Aspect said:
So is allowing women to vote. Not sure that there's necessarily a good argument there tbh.rjsterry said:
Think back to what British Rail was like. Historically, public ownership is the aberration as they all started off as private enterprises.First.Aspect said:
Well, in some instances it was merely boosting the economy in the same way that I can boost my savings by selling my car. But I no longer have a car.rjsterry said:
Perish the thought 😏Stevo_666 said:
We're past the 80s now FA...and you should be past lazy leftie sterotyping.First.Aspect said:
Thing is Stevo, this time around, there are no nationalised industries left to sell on the cheap to your mates to create the illusion of prosperity. So we kind of need someone capable of independent thought, rather than more Thatcher worshiping posh boys.Stevo_666 said:
Not so much what I was up to aged 13, more the 25% inflation, unions holding the country to ransom, censored nationalised industries, UK going cap in hand to the IMF, etcsungod said:
why?Stevo_666 said:
And we sure as hell don't want to go back there.rick_chasey said:
Yes this isn’t 1979surrey_commuter said:
What do you think they would do worse than Brexit, nationalisation, increased red tape, yo-young corp tax and record high personal taxation?Stevo_666 said:
If a Labour win is as nailed on as some people claim, then the looney left is what we should be concerned about.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Whilst I am quite content with Sunak, I find your fear of non blue rosettes to be strange as you seem to fear the very things your own side does.
in 1979 i was having a great time, the next 2-3 decades were pretty good too
But seriously, privatisation of utilities did provide a boost to the economy and right to buy did open up the option of home ownership, and Sunak or anyone else just doesn't have those options available. Clearly Stop the Boats isn't enough and is never going to happen anyway. So what then?
I was a bit young, but my recollection was that these sell offs created a FOMO mania in the public, and that there was wall-to-wall press coverage beforehand telling everyone what great wealth they would be missing out on.
I'm less sure there was any great philosophical shift in the pubic views in general. And if there was, nationalised inefficiencies have been replaced by costs bleeding out to shareholders (now typically consolidated into large institutional investors, rather than the bloke next door) and there is some remorse among those of us left alive who can remember the alternative.
Has there really been any great improvement to service or value? Or is that what we are told because it's too late now?
Personally I can't help but notice how much better public and publicly owned transport is elsewhere, compared to the omnishambles we have.
Certainly in Scotland they have, but the people running it now can't run a small member's club competently, so it's not a fair comparison.
0 -
Bendy busses in London were a pretty bad disaster. I think one of the dragged a man along under the wheels for 10 minutes before they banned them. IIRC the driver didn't even know he'd run someone over till he got back to the depot.Stevo_666 said:
What about long buses?rick_chasey said:
Getting run over by them on the bike!!First.Aspect said:
Conservative government has explained that this will enable us to have bigger vehicles on our roads and transport less goods by train. What's not to like?rick_chasey said:Can't say I'm especially happy with longer lorries....
0 -
I guess were looking at long wheelbase ebikes then...rick_chasey said:
Bendy busses in London were a pretty bad disaster. I think one of the dragged a man along under the wheels for 10 minutes before they banned them. IIRC the driver didn't even know he'd run someone over till he got back to the depot.Stevo_666 said:
What about long buses?rick_chasey said:
Getting run over by them on the bike!!First.Aspect said:
Conservative government has explained that this will enable us to have bigger vehicles on our roads and transport less goods by train. What's not to like?rick_chasey said:Can't say I'm especially happy with longer lorries....
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
How it startedFirst.Aspect said:
Go on...rjsterry said:
No it's not like that either.First.Aspect said:
Well that's not the same thing. Any more than a PPE supplier is part of the NHS.rjsterry said:
Push away. The operators are now effectively government contractors.First.Aspect said:
You may get some push back on that assertion.rjsterry said:
It's publicly owned here, too. They've been re-nationalised on the quiet.First.Aspect said:
So is allowing women to vote. Not sure that there's necessarily a good argument there tbh.rjsterry said:
Think back to what British Rail was like. Historically, public ownership is the aberration as they all started off as private enterprises.First.Aspect said:
Well, in some instances it was merely boosting the economy in the same way that I can boost my savings by selling my car. But I no longer have a car.rjsterry said:
Perish the thought 😏Stevo_666 said:
We're past the 80s now FA...and you should be past lazy leftie sterotyping.First.Aspect said:
Thing is Stevo, this time around, there are no nationalised industries left to sell on the cheap to your mates to create the illusion of prosperity. So we kind of need someone capable of independent thought, rather than more Thatcher worshiping posh boys.Stevo_666 said:
Not so much what I was up to aged 13, more the 25% inflation, unions holding the country to ransom, censored nationalised industries, UK going cap in hand to the IMF, etcsungod said:
why?Stevo_666 said:
And we sure as hell don't want to go back there.rick_chasey said:
Yes this isn’t 1979surrey_commuter said:
What do you think they would do worse than Brexit, nationalisation, increased red tape, yo-young corp tax and record high personal taxation?Stevo_666 said:
If a Labour win is as nailed on as some people claim, then the looney left is what we should be concerned about.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Whilst I am quite content with Sunak, I find your fear of non blue rosettes to be strange as you seem to fear the very things your own side does.
in 1979 i was having a great time, the next 2-3 decades were pretty good too
But seriously, privatisation of utilities did provide a boost to the economy and right to buy did open up the option of home ownership, and Sunak or anyone else just doesn't have those options available. Clearly Stop the Boats isn't enough and is never going to happen anyway. So what then?
I was a bit young, but my recollection was that these sell offs created a FOMO mania in the public, and that there was wall-to-wall press coverage beforehand telling everyone what great wealth they would be missing out on.
I'm less sure there was any great philosophical shift in the pubic views in general. And if there was, nationalised inefficiencies have been replaced by costs bleeding out to shareholders (now typically consolidated into large institutional investors, rather than the bloke next door) and there is some remorse among those of us left alive who can remember the alternative.
Has there really been any great improvement to service or value? Or is that what we are told because it's too late now?
Personally I can't help but notice how much better public and publicly owned transport is elsewhere, compared to the omnishambles we have.
Certainly in Scotland they have, but the people running it now can't run a small member's club competently, so it's not a fair comparison.
How it's going (because the franchisees couldn't make it work with post-covid passenger numbers)
The structure is similar but DfT has taken back direct control of some franchises and revised the terms of others such that the TOCs are no longer really independent businesses. They can't even set their own pay levels.
How it will be going.
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/williams-shapps-an-engineering-perspective/?amp
To go back to your example, the NHS doesn't have a say in the PPE manufacturers running of their own business.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Plenty of those around town.Stevo_666 said:
I guess were looking at long wheelbase ebikes then...rick_chasey said:
Bendy busses in London were a pretty bad disaster. I think one of the dragged a man along under the wheels for 10 minutes before they banned them. IIRC the driver didn't even know he'd run someone over till he got back to the depot.Stevo_666 said:
What about long buses?rick_chasey said:
Getting run over by them on the bike!!First.Aspect said:
Conservative government has explained that this will enable us to have bigger vehicles on our roads and transport less goods by train. What's not to like?rick_chasey said:Can't say I'm especially happy with longer lorries....
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's also why they're so poor when it comes to customer complaints.rjsterry said:
How it startedFirst.Aspect said:
Go on...rjsterry said:
No it's not like that either.First.Aspect said:
Well that's not the same thing. Any more than a PPE supplier is part of the NHS.rjsterry said:
Push away. The operators are now effectively government contractors.First.Aspect said:
You may get some push back on that assertion.rjsterry said:
It's publicly owned here, too. They've been re-nationalised on the quiet.First.Aspect said:
So is allowing women to vote. Not sure that there's necessarily a good argument there tbh.rjsterry said:
Think back to what British Rail was like. Historically, public ownership is the aberration as they all started off as private enterprises.First.Aspect said:
Well, in some instances it was merely boosting the economy in the same way that I can boost my savings by selling my car. But I no longer have a car.rjsterry said:
Perish the thought 😏Stevo_666 said:
We're past the 80s now FA...and you should be past lazy leftie sterotyping.First.Aspect said:
Thing is Stevo, this time around, there are no nationalised industries left to sell on the cheap to your mates to create the illusion of prosperity. So we kind of need someone capable of independent thought, rather than more Thatcher worshiping posh boys.Stevo_666 said:
Not so much what I was up to aged 13, more the 25% inflation, unions holding the country to ransom, censored nationalised industries, UK going cap in hand to the IMF, etcsungod said:
why?Stevo_666 said:
And we sure as hell don't want to go back there.rick_chasey said:
Yes this isn’t 1979surrey_commuter said:
What do you think they would do worse than Brexit, nationalisation, increased red tape, yo-young corp tax and record high personal taxation?Stevo_666 said:
If a Labour win is as nailed on as some people claim, then the looney left is what we should be concerned about.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Whilst I am quite content with Sunak, I find your fear of non blue rosettes to be strange as you seem to fear the very things your own side does.
in 1979 i was having a great time, the next 2-3 decades were pretty good too
But seriously, privatisation of utilities did provide a boost to the economy and right to buy did open up the option of home ownership, and Sunak or anyone else just doesn't have those options available. Clearly Stop the Boats isn't enough and is never going to happen anyway. So what then?
I was a bit young, but my recollection was that these sell offs created a FOMO mania in the public, and that there was wall-to-wall press coverage beforehand telling everyone what great wealth they would be missing out on.
I'm less sure there was any great philosophical shift in the pubic views in general. And if there was, nationalised inefficiencies have been replaced by costs bleeding out to shareholders (now typically consolidated into large institutional investors, rather than the bloke next door) and there is some remorse among those of us left alive who can remember the alternative.
Has there really been any great improvement to service or value? Or is that what we are told because it's too late now?
Personally I can't help but notice how much better public and publicly owned transport is elsewhere, compared to the omnishambles we have.
Certainly in Scotland they have, but the people running it now can't run a small member's club competently, so it's not a fair comparison.
How it's going (because the franchisees couldn't make it work with post-covid passenger numbers)
The structure is similar but DfT has taken back direct control of some franchises and revised the terms of others such that the TOCs are no longer really independent businesses. They can't even set their own pay levels.
How it will be going.
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/williams-shapps-an-engineering-perspective/?amp
To go back to your example, the NHS doesn't have a say in the PPE manufacturers running of their own business.
All customers care about is a punctual service with reasonable frequency and reasonable capacity.
But which bit of that structure is responsible for any given problem can be different every time.
So the passenger sees problems every day but each individual bit of it may have only had one problem that week.
0 -
Very handy for transporting tonnes of aggregates to building sites, for examplerjsterry said:
Plenty of those around town.Stevo_666 said:
I guess were looking at long wheelbase ebikes then...rick_chasey said:
Bendy busses in London were a pretty bad disaster. I think one of the dragged a man along under the wheels for 10 minutes before they banned them. IIRC the driver didn't even know he'd run someone over till he got back to the depot.Stevo_666 said:
What about long buses?rick_chasey said:
Getting run over by them on the bike!!First.Aspect said:
Conservative government has explained that this will enable us to have bigger vehicles on our roads and transport less goods by train. What's not to like?rick_chasey said:Can't say I'm especially happy with longer lorries....
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Lots of arrows.rjsterry said:
How it startedFirst.Aspect said:
Go on...rjsterry said:
No it's not like that either.First.Aspect said:
Well that's not the same thing. Any more than a PPE supplier is part of the NHS.rjsterry said:
Push away. The operators are now effectively government contractors.First.Aspect said:
You may get some push back on that assertion.rjsterry said:
It's publicly owned here, too. They've been re-nationalised on the quiet.First.Aspect said:
So is allowing women to vote. Not sure that there's necessarily a good argument there tbh.rjsterry said:
Think back to what British Rail was like. Historically, public ownership is the aberration as they all started off as private enterprises.First.Aspect said:
Well, in some instances it was merely boosting the economy in the same way that I can boost my savings by selling my car. But I no longer have a car.rjsterry said:
Perish the thought 😏Stevo_666 said:
We're past the 80s now FA...and you should be past lazy leftie sterotyping.First.Aspect said:
Thing is Stevo, this time around, there are no nationalised industries left to sell on the cheap to your mates to create the illusion of prosperity. So we kind of need someone capable of independent thought, rather than more Thatcher worshiping posh boys.Stevo_666 said:
Not so much what I was up to aged 13, more the 25% inflation, unions holding the country to ransom, censored nationalised industries, UK going cap in hand to the IMF, etcsungod said:
why?Stevo_666 said:
And we sure as hell don't want to go back there.rick_chasey said:
Yes this isn’t 1979surrey_commuter said:
What do you think they would do worse than Brexit, nationalisation, increased red tape, yo-young corp tax and record high personal taxation?Stevo_666 said:
If a Labour win is as nailed on as some people claim, then the looney left is what we should be concerned about.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Whilst I am quite content with Sunak, I find your fear of non blue rosettes to be strange as you seem to fear the very things your own side does.
in 1979 i was having a great time, the next 2-3 decades were pretty good too
But seriously, privatisation of utilities did provide a boost to the economy and right to buy did open up the option of home ownership, and Sunak or anyone else just doesn't have those options available. Clearly Stop the Boats isn't enough and is never going to happen anyway. So what then?
I was a bit young, but my recollection was that these sell offs created a FOMO mania in the public, and that there was wall-to-wall press coverage beforehand telling everyone what great wealth they would be missing out on.
I'm less sure there was any great philosophical shift in the pubic views in general. And if there was, nationalised inefficiencies have been replaced by costs bleeding out to shareholders (now typically consolidated into large institutional investors, rather than the bloke next door) and there is some remorse among those of us left alive who can remember the alternative.
Has there really been any great improvement to service or value? Or is that what we are told because it's too late now?
Personally I can't help but notice how much better public and publicly owned transport is elsewhere, compared to the omnishambles we have.
Certainly in Scotland they have, but the people running it now can't run a small member's club competently, so it's not a fair comparison.
How it's going (because the franchisees couldn't make it work with post-covid passenger numbers)
The structure is similar but DfT has taken back direct control of some franchises and revised the terms of others such that the TOCs are no longer really independent businesses. They can't even set their own pay levels.
How it will be going.
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/williams-shapps-an-engineering-perspective/?amp
To go back to your example, the NHS doesn't have a say in the PPE manufacturers running of their own business.
It is different in the sense that we are discussing products (PPE) vs services (rail), but fundamentally, your arrows represent contractual terms and obligations that are further to a tender put out by a governmental organisation that has been won by a private company. Doesn't really matter if these are regulatory requirements or commercial terms - both apply in both cases.
So, put another way, yes the NHS does have a role in how the products are supplied and thus how the business is run. So does the government, because it sets the regulations that the products must meet.
Perhaps more, or less of a role, depending on what percentage of a company's custom is dedicated to that particular contract. Many of the rail companies have UK rail franchises that represent a fairly small part of their overall business. Abiello certainly made that clear up here. They can do what they want with the rest of their business.
The unionisation of the workforce (and the role government has in pay settlements, which you've pointed out previously) is kind of a different issue.0 -
No, sure, but they do replace courier vans and Ubers.Stevo_666 said:
Very handy for transporting tonnes of aggregates to building sites, for examplerjsterry said:
Plenty of those around town.Stevo_666 said:
I guess were looking at long wheelbase ebikes then...rick_chasey said:
Bendy busses in London were a pretty bad disaster. I think one of the dragged a man along under the wheels for 10 minutes before they banned them. IIRC the driver didn't even know he'd run someone over till he got back to the depot.Stevo_666 said:
What about long buses?rick_chasey said:
Getting run over by them on the bike!!First.Aspect said:
Conservative government has explained that this will enable us to have bigger vehicles on our roads and transport less goods by train. What's not to like?rick_chasey said:Can't say I'm especially happy with longer lorries....
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Product specification - which is perfectly reasonable for a customer to set - is not the same as dictating a supplier's internal employment terms and profit margins.First.Aspect said:
Lots of arrows.rjsterry said:
How it startedFirst.Aspect said:
Go on...rjsterry said:
No it's not like that either.First.Aspect said:
Well that's not the same thing. Any more than a PPE supplier is part of the NHS.rjsterry said:
Push away. The operators are now effectively government contractors.First.Aspect said:
You may get some push back on that assertion.rjsterry said:
It's publicly owned here, too. They've been re-nationalised on the quiet.First.Aspect said:
So is allowing women to vote. Not sure that there's necessarily a good argument there tbh.rjsterry said:
Think back to what British Rail was like. Historically, public ownership is the aberration as they all started off as private enterprises.First.Aspect said:
Well, in some instances it was merely boosting the economy in the same way that I can boost my savings by selling my car. But I no longer have a car.rjsterry said:
Perish the thought 😏Stevo_666 said:
We're past the 80s now FA...and you should be past lazy leftie sterotyping.First.Aspect said:
Thing is Stevo, this time around, there are no nationalised industries left to sell on the cheap to your mates to create the illusion of prosperity. So we kind of need someone capable of independent thought, rather than more Thatcher worshiping posh boys.Stevo_666 said:
Not so much what I was up to aged 13, more the 25% inflation, unions holding the country to ransom, censored nationalised industries, UK going cap in hand to the IMF, etcsungod said:
why?Stevo_666 said:
And we sure as hell don't want to go back there.rick_chasey said:
Yes this isn’t 1979surrey_commuter said:
What do you think they would do worse than Brexit, nationalisation, increased red tape, yo-young corp tax and record high personal taxation?Stevo_666 said:
If a Labour win is as nailed on as some people claim, then the looney left is what we should be concerned about.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Whilst I am quite content with Sunak, I find your fear of non blue rosettes to be strange as you seem to fear the very things your own side does.
in 1979 i was having a great time, the next 2-3 decades were pretty good too
But seriously, privatisation of utilities did provide a boost to the economy and right to buy did open up the option of home ownership, and Sunak or anyone else just doesn't have those options available. Clearly Stop the Boats isn't enough and is never going to happen anyway. So what then?
I was a bit young, but my recollection was that these sell offs created a FOMO mania in the public, and that there was wall-to-wall press coverage beforehand telling everyone what great wealth they would be missing out on.
I'm less sure there was any great philosophical shift in the pubic views in general. And if there was, nationalised inefficiencies have been replaced by costs bleeding out to shareholders (now typically consolidated into large institutional investors, rather than the bloke next door) and there is some remorse among those of us left alive who can remember the alternative.
Has there really been any great improvement to service or value? Or is that what we are told because it's too late now?
Personally I can't help but notice how much better public and publicly owned transport is elsewhere, compared to the omnishambles we have.
Certainly in Scotland they have, but the people running it now can't run a small member's club competently, so it's not a fair comparison.
How it's going (because the franchisees couldn't make it work with post-covid passenger numbers)
The structure is similar but DfT has taken back direct control of some franchises and revised the terms of others such that the TOCs are no longer really independent businesses. They can't even set their own pay levels.
How it will be going.
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/williams-shapps-an-engineering-perspective/?amp
To go back to your example, the NHS doesn't have a say in the PPE manufacturers running of their own business.
It is different in the sense that we are discussing products (PPE) vs services (rail), but fundamentally, your arrows represent contractual terms and obligations that are further to a tender put out by a governmental organisation that has been won by a private company. Doesn't really matter if these are regulatory requirements or commercial terms - both apply in both cases.
So, put another way, yes the NHS does have a role in how the products are supplied and thus how the business is run. So does the government, because it sets the regulations that the products must meet.
Perhaps more, or less of a role, depending on what percentage of a company's custom is dedicated to that particular contract. Many of the rail companies have UK rail franchises that represent a fairly small part of their overall business. Abiello certainly made that clear up here. They can do what they want with the rest of their business.
The unionisation of the workforce (and the role government has in pay settlements, which you've pointed out previously) is kind of a different issue.
I think you are also ignoring the business structures. GTR has one customer. Its parent group is a joint venture between Go-Ahead and Keolis, who have other customers, but that is all separate from the running of Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchises. There's no capacity to move resources from one to the other.
A large part of why we are heading back to full nationalisation is that commercial groups are not that interested in tendering for the franchises because they cannot make a business of it.
To return to your example: nobody suggests that the NHS is a privatised service because they source some of their staff from agencies. That is roughly where we are.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Product specifications aren't the same as regulations. And PPE/medical devices are hugely regulated.
Companies ring-fence subsidiaries for a very good reason. Tax, for one thing. And in your example, to keep the inconvenience of running a rail franchise well away from the valuable parts of the organisation.
There's nothing stopping a parent company from putting more resources in, but why would they? Would be like Waitrose propping up John Lewis.
Not sure a failure to make rail profitable is a result of the structure, or because rail isn't profitable anywhere, with the structure being a hopeless work around to avoid the inevitable conclusion that privatisation was a stupid idea.
This comes down to the philosophical argument - is it a public service that a government should provide in order to facilitate movement of people and concomitant economic activity? Or is it just some other economic activity that should stand and fall on its own merits?
Personally, i think it is a loss leader, i.e. clearly the former. It can't make sense to anyone for a government to use taxes to subsidise an industry so that part of it can make a profit. Unless you bought shares.1 -
People built and made railways profitable for far longer than the 50 years they were nationalised. It has now been largely re-nationalised since September 2021, so I'm not sure what you think is going to happen.First.Aspect said:Product specifications aren't the same as regulations. And PPE/medical devices are hugely regulated.
Companies ring-fence subsidiaries for a very good reason. Tax, for one thing. And in your example, to keep the inconvenience of running a rail franchise well away from the valuable parts of the organisation.
There's nothing stopping a parent company from putting more resources in, but why would they? Would be like Waitrose propping up John Lewis.
Not sure a failure to make rail profitable is a result of the structure, or because rail isn't profitable anywhere, with the structure being a hopeless work around to avoid the inevitable conclusion that privatisation was a stupid idea.
This comes down to the philosophical argument - is it a public service that a government should provide in order to facilitate movement of people and concomitant economic activity? Or is it just some other economic activity that should stand and fall on its own merits?
Personally, i think it is a loss leader, i.e. clearly the former. It can't make sense to anyone for a government to use taxes to subsidise an industry so that part of it can make a profit. Unless you bought shares.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Just because they made profits 100 years ago competing successfully with horses and canal boats doesn't mean its possible now. They've invented teslas and aeroplanes and stuff, see?rjsterry said:
People built and made railways profitable for far longer than the 50 years they were nationalised. It has now been largely re-nationalised since September 2021, so I'm not sure what you think is going to happen.First.Aspect said:Product specifications aren't the same as regulations. And PPE/medical devices are hugely regulated.
Companies ring-fence subsidiaries for a very good reason. Tax, for one thing. And in your example, to keep the inconvenience of running a rail franchise well away from the valuable parts of the organisation.
There's nothing stopping a parent company from putting more resources in, but why would they? Would be like Waitrose propping up John Lewis.
Not sure a failure to make rail profitable is a result of the structure, or because rail isn't profitable anywhere, with the structure being a hopeless work around to avoid the inevitable conclusion that privatisation was a stupid idea.
This comes down to the philosophical argument - is it a public service that a government should provide in order to facilitate movement of people and concomitant economic activity? Or is it just some other economic activity that should stand and fall on its own merits?
Personally, i think it is a loss leader, i.e. clearly the former. It can't make sense to anyone for a government to use taxes to subsidise an industry so that part of it can make a profit. Unless you bought shares.
I don't accept that the rail has been renationalised. The infrastructure has, the services haven't.
0 -
It has. Five of the franchises are operated by the government as operator of last resort. The remainder are operating under management contracts as the pre covid system was scrapped in 2020. All fare revenue goes back to the government, not to the TOC. The government also bears all the risk if fewer passengers travel. In no meaningful sense are the railways privately owned.First.Aspect said:
Just because they made profits 100 years ago competing successfully with horses and canal boats doesn't mean its possible now. They've invented teslas and aeroplanes and stuff, see?rjsterry said:
People built and made railways profitable for far longer than the 50 years they were nationalised. It has now been largely re-nationalised since September 2021, so I'm not sure what you think is going to happen.First.Aspect said:Product specifications aren't the same as regulations. And PPE/medical devices are hugely regulated.
Companies ring-fence subsidiaries for a very good reason. Tax, for one thing. And in your example, to keep the inconvenience of running a rail franchise well away from the valuable parts of the organisation.
There's nothing stopping a parent company from putting more resources in, but why would they? Would be like Waitrose propping up John Lewis.
Not sure a failure to make rail profitable is a result of the structure, or because rail isn't profitable anywhere, with the structure being a hopeless work around to avoid the inevitable conclusion that privatisation was a stupid idea.
This comes down to the philosophical argument - is it a public service that a government should provide in order to facilitate movement of people and concomitant economic activity? Or is it just some other economic activity that should stand and fall on its own merits?
Personally, i think it is a loss leader, i.e. clearly the former. It can't make sense to anyone for a government to use taxes to subsidise an industry so that part of it can make a profit. Unless you bought shares.
I don't accept that the rail has been renationalised. The infrastructure has, the services haven't.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Fair enough.rjsterry said:
It has. Five of the franchises are operated by the government as operator of last resort. The remainder are operating under management contracts as the pre covid system was scrapped in 2020. All fare revenue goes back to the government, not to the TOC. The government also bears all the risk if fewer passengers travel. In no meaningful sense are the railways privately owned.First.Aspect said:
Just because they made profits 100 years ago competing successfully with horses and canal boats doesn't mean its possible now. They've invented teslas and aeroplanes and stuff, see?rjsterry said:
People built and made railways profitable for far longer than the 50 years they were nationalised. It has now been largely re-nationalised since September 2021, so I'm not sure what you think is going to happen.First.Aspect said:Product specifications aren't the same as regulations. And PPE/medical devices are hugely regulated.
Companies ring-fence subsidiaries for a very good reason. Tax, for one thing. And in your example, to keep the inconvenience of running a rail franchise well away from the valuable parts of the organisation.
There's nothing stopping a parent company from putting more resources in, but why would they? Would be like Waitrose propping up John Lewis.
Not sure a failure to make rail profitable is a result of the structure, or because rail isn't profitable anywhere, with the structure being a hopeless work around to avoid the inevitable conclusion that privatisation was a stupid idea.
This comes down to the philosophical argument - is it a public service that a government should provide in order to facilitate movement of people and concomitant economic activity? Or is it just some other economic activity that should stand and fall on its own merits?
Personally, i think it is a loss leader, i.e. clearly the former. It can't make sense to anyone for a government to use taxes to subsidise an industry so that part of it can make a profit. Unless you bought shares.
I don't accept that the rail has been renationalised. The infrastructure has, the services haven't.
All that is needed now is some actual investment then.
What we need is a chum we went to school with, who is owed a favour for covering up that thing in abuse a fresher week that time, and he can sort it out for us.0 -
Oh look: Robert Jenrick the immigration minister, making stuff up about immigration live on national television. Absolutely full of s***.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
First.Aspect said:
Fair enough.rjsterry said:
It has. Five of the franchises are operated by the government as operator of last resort. The remainder are operating under management contracts as the pre covid system was scrapped in 2020. All fare revenue goes back to the government, not to the TOC. The government also bears all the risk if fewer passengers travel. In no meaningful sense are the railways privately owned.First.Aspect said:
Just because they made profits 100 years ago competing successfully with horses and canal boats doesn't mean its possible now. They've invented teslas and aeroplanes and stuff, see?rjsterry said:
People built and made railways profitable for far longer than the 50 years they were nationalised. It has now been largely re-nationalised since September 2021, so I'm not sure what you think is going to happen.First.Aspect said:Product specifications aren't the same as regulations. And PPE/medical devices are hugely regulated.
Companies ring-fence subsidiaries for a very good reason. Tax, for one thing. And in your example, to keep the inconvenience of running a rail franchise well away from the valuable parts of the organisation.
There's nothing stopping a parent company from putting more resources in, but why would they? Would be like Waitrose propping up John Lewis.
Not sure a failure to make rail profitable is a result of the structure, or because rail isn't profitable anywhere, with the structure being a hopeless work around to avoid the inevitable conclusion that privatisation was a stupid idea.
This comes down to the philosophical argument - is it a public service that a government should provide in order to facilitate movement of people and concomitant economic activity? Or is it just some other economic activity that should stand and fall on its own merits?
Personally, i think it is a loss leader, i.e. clearly the former. It can't make sense to anyone for a government to use taxes to subsidise an industry so that part of it can make a profit. Unless you bought shares.
I don't accept that the rail has been renationalised. The infrastructure has, the services haven't.
All that is needed now is some actual investment then.
What we need is a chum we went to school with, who is owed a favour for covering up that thing in abuse a fresher week that time, and he can sort it out for us.
Another one taken under direct government control.First.Aspect said:
Fair enough.rjsterry said:
It has. Five of the franchises are operated by the government as operator of last resort. The remainder are operating under management contracts as the pre covid system was scrapped in 2020. All fare revenue goes back to the government, not to the TOC. The government also bears all the risk if fewer passengers travel. In no meaningful sense are the railways privately owned.First.Aspect said:
Just because they made profits 100 years ago competing successfully with horses and canal boats doesn't mean its possible now. They've invented teslas and aeroplanes and stuff, see?rjsterry said:
People built and made railways profitable for far longer than the 50 years they were nationalised. It has now been largely re-nationalised since September 2021, so I'm not sure what you think is going to happen.First.Aspect said:Product specifications aren't the same as regulations. And PPE/medical devices are hugely regulated.
Companies ring-fence subsidiaries for a very good reason. Tax, for one thing. And in your example, to keep the inconvenience of running a rail franchise well away from the valuable parts of the organisation.
There's nothing stopping a parent company from putting more resources in, but why would they? Would be like Waitrose propping up John Lewis.
Not sure a failure to make rail profitable is a result of the structure, or because rail isn't profitable anywhere, with the structure being a hopeless work around to avoid the inevitable conclusion that privatisation was a stupid idea.
This comes down to the philosophical argument - is it a public service that a government should provide in order to facilitate movement of people and concomitant economic activity? Or is it just some other economic activity that should stand and fall on its own merits?
Personally, i think it is a loss leader, i.e. clearly the former. It can't make sense to anyone for a government to use taxes to subsidise an industry so that part of it can make a profit. Unless you bought shares.
I don't accept that the rail has been renationalised. The infrastructure has, the services haven't.
All that is needed now is some actual investment then.
What we need is a chum we went to school with, who is owed a favour for covering up that thing in abuse a fresher week that time, and he can sort it out for us.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/11/transpennine-express-nationalised-for-catalogue-of-failings-and-poor-service
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Legalise electric scooters. That's another option.
Transpennine Scooters and Cagoules Plc.0 -
They practically are aren't they? I schlepped across Cambridge today on my bike and passed loads.First.Aspect said:Legalise electric scooters.
I even tripped up over one in the co-op.0 -
Yes, but be careful what you wish for. Visited Lisbon a few years ago and walking around pedestrian plazas is now like a game of frogger.rick_chasey said:
They practically are aren't they? I schlepped across Cambridge today on my bike and passed loads.First.Aspect said:Legalise electric scooters.
I even tripped up over one in the co-op.0 -
The Cambridge ones are auto slowed to well below walking pace in certain built up areas.
Singapore (singers) has banned them which seems a little Draconian as they are excellent for mass transport across short distances.
The pedestrian thing is an issue though.-1 -
Likewise in Annecy. Once the rentals are finished with they are ditched at the most convenient location for the user/least convenient for everyone else. 🤬First.Aspect said:
Yes, but be careful what you wish for. Visited Lisbon a few years ago and walking around pedestrian plazas is now like a game of frogger.rick_chasey said:
They practically are aren't they? I schlepped across Cambridge today on my bike and passed loads.First.Aspect said:Legalise electric scooters.
I even tripped up over one in the co-op.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 -
but do you legalise them for the road or pavement?shirley_basso said:The Cambridge ones are auto slowed to well below walking pace in certain built up areas.
Singapore (singers) has banned them which seems a little Draconian as they are excellent for mass transport across short distances.
The pedestrian thing is an issue though.0 -
Pavement. They are too unstable for the road, and you really really don't want to be sharing bus and cycle lanes with them.surrey_commuter said:
but do you legalise them for the road or pavement?shirley_basso said:The Cambridge ones are auto slowed to well below walking pace in certain built up areas.
Singapore (singers) has banned them which seems a little Draconian as they are excellent for mass transport across short distances.
The pedestrian thing is an issue though.0 -
and if you are a pedestrian you really don't want to be sharing the pavement with them.First.Aspect said:
Pavement. They are too unstable for the road, and you really really don't want to be sharing bus and cycle lanes with them.surrey_commuter said:
but do you legalise them for the road or pavement?shirley_basso said:The Cambridge ones are auto slowed to well below walking pace in certain built up areas.
Singapore (singers) has banned them which seems a little Draconian as they are excellent for mass transport across short distances.
The pedestrian thing is an issue though.0 -
Yup.surrey_commuter said:
and if you are a pedestrian you really don't want to be sharing the pavement with them.First.Aspect said:
Pavement. They are too unstable for the road, and you really really don't want to be sharing bus and cycle lanes with them.surrey_commuter said:
but do you legalise them for the road or pavement?shirley_basso said:The Cambridge ones are auto slowed to well below walking pace in certain built up areas.
Singapore (singers) has banned them which seems a little Draconian as they are excellent for mass transport across short distances.
The pedestrian thing is an issue though.0 -
But if they are on the roads people will die. If they are on pavements people will be annoyed.First.Aspect said:
Yup.surrey_commuter said:
and if you are a pedestrian you really don't want to be sharing the pavement with them.First.Aspect said:
Pavement. They are too unstable for the road, and you really really don't want to be sharing bus and cycle lanes with them.surrey_commuter said:
but do you legalise them for the road or pavement?shirley_basso said:The Cambridge ones are auto slowed to well below walking pace in certain built up areas.
Singapore (singers) has banned them which seems a little Draconian as they are excellent for mass transport across short distances.
The pedestrian thing is an issue though.0 -
They are on the roads in Bristol (the official voi ones) and this has not resulted in mass deaths.First.Aspect said:
But if they are on the roads people will die. If they are on pavements people will be annoyed.First.Aspect said:
Yup.surrey_commuter said:
and if you are a pedestrian you really don't want to be sharing the pavement with them.First.Aspect said:
Pavement. They are too unstable for the road, and you really really don't want to be sharing bus and cycle lanes with them.surrey_commuter said:
but do you legalise them for the road or pavement?shirley_basso said:The Cambridge ones are auto slowed to well below walking pace in certain built up areas.
Singapore (singers) has banned them which seems a little Draconian as they are excellent for mass transport across short distances.
The pedestrian thing is an issue though.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0
