Current events

Pat494

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2004
13,037
1,221
223
#20
Will the Liberals take this opportunity to set out some new imaginative policies ?
Probably not.
 

Atilla

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2006
18,113
2,482
323
#21
Labour really can't be serious about re-introducing Nationalisation for the railways can they ? It's been tried and was a complete failure.
They can't seem to understand this country needs to be world competitive to survive. Not much point in regurgitating failed policies. Everything has to be paid for.

Do you use the railways?


Bleeding Tories rip off nation! Biggest fecking liers and professional politicians EVAR!


The Four Big Myths of UK Rail Privatisation
Philip Hadley | June 1, 2015 | Featured, News | No Comments

Rail privatisation was promoted in the early 1990s in the UK with promises of a better, cheaper service for rail users and reduced taxpayer subsidy. Private rail companies, it was argued, would bring in capital and business expertise which would transform the sector’s performance while competition would drive efficiency and innovation.

Action for Rail has published new analysis which comprehensively debunks these ‘myths’ of rail privatisation. To see the new, short report – The Four Big Myths of UK Rail Privatisation, please click here.

On each of the above measures, UK rail privatisation has been a failure. Today’s railways require billions more in government funding, private investment has failed to materialise and passengers face the highest fares and travel on some of the oldest rolling stock in Europe. Private train operating companies are net recipients of public subsidy while distributing nearly all their operating profits as dividends to the shareholders of their parent companies.

Advocates of rail privatisation adhere to the myth of franchising as a success story for the passenger and the taxpayer. This document busts those myths.

Here are some key facts from the mythbusting report:


Myth 1 – UK rail privatisation has created passenger growth

Growth in rail passenger journeys is driven by three key factors that have nothing to do with train operating companies: longterm growth in GDP, changing commuting patterns as employment has concentrated in major urban areas, particularly in London and the South East, and increase in motoring costs.
The 59 per cent increase in passenger growth on the UK railways has also been stimulated by the 300 per cent increase in public subsidy since privatisation.


Myth 2 – UK rail privatisation has resulted in new investment and innovation

Over 90 per cent of new investment in the railways in recent years has been financed by public sector body Network Rail, and comes mainly from taxpayer funding or government-underwritten borrowing.
Genuine at-risk private investment in the railway in 2010–11 lay somewhere in the range of £100m–£380m, with the figure most probably lying at the lower end. In the same year, other sources of income for the railway – public money and the fare box – contributed £10.6bn.


Myth 3 – UK rail privatisation has resulted in cheaper and better services for passengers

Since rail privatisation in 1995 up to 2015, all tickets (regulated and unregulated) have increased by an average of 117 per cent, or by 24 per cent in real terms.
UK railways are slower and more overcrowded than predominantly publicly owned
rail services in Germany, France, Italy and Spain.


Myth 4 – UK rail privatisation is a better deal for the taxpayer

The cost of running the railway has more than doubled in real terms since privatisation from £2.4bn per year (1990–91 to 1994–95) to approximately £5.4bn per year (2005–06 to 2009–10).
Official figures show that all but one of the private train operators in the UK receive more in subsidies than they return in the form of franchise payments to the government. In 2013–14, the government contributed £3.8bn to the UK rail industry.
The top five recipients of public subsidy alone received almost £3bn in taxpayer support between 2007 and 2011. This allowed them to make operating profits of £504m – over 90 per cent (£466m) of which was paid to shareholders.
 

Splitlink

Well-known member
Nov 18, 2001
10,850
1,231
223
#22
Will the Liberals take this opportunity to set out some new imaginative policies ?
Probably not.
They would legalise cannabis. Good vote catcher, I should imagine. My son commented last night, all the traffic violations, these days, seem to catch the drivers under drink or drugs--- Spain, I'm talking about. God forbid that it happen in the UK. :D
 

Pat494

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2004
13,037
1,221
223
#23

Do you use the railways?


Bleeding Tories rip off nation! Biggest fecking liers and professional politicians EVAR!


The Four Big Myths of UK Rail Privatisation
Philip Hadley | June 1, 2015 | Featured, News | No Comments

.
Looks like a management problem to me.
 

Atilla

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2006
18,113
2,482
323
#24
Looks like a management problem to me.

Who are the management?

How many managers are there?

How many operating companies are there?

How many different ticket suppliers, tariffs and management systems are there?

Privatising natural monopolies clearly doesn't work.

Consumers do not benefit. Consumers get fleeced and shareholders get the transfer of income into dividend payouts. :idea:
 

Pat494

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2004
13,037
1,221
223
#25
It is time for a Union rep to be sitting on all public company boards. There is a lot of dodgy goings on by greedy directors imho that need airing. More swamp draining !!
 

Atilla

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2006
18,113
2,482
323
#26
It is time for a Union rep to be sitting on all public company boards. There is a lot of dodgy goings on by greedy directors imho that need airing. More swamp draining !!

Agreed. Do as they do in Germany.

Also, get rid of useless management & fat cat layers. Consolidate and standardise national transport policy. It is an integral part of industrial productivity.

When peeps arrive at work feeling like sh1t creativity effort and drive are all affected in a big way.
 

Pat494

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2004
13,037
1,221
223
#29
There is in my opinion an alarming tendency for a move away from democracy towards dictatorship. This is evident in Turkey under Erdogan, Russia under Putin, the rise of the right wing parties in Europe, North Korea under Kim, China under Xi and even the USA under Trump.

Not good imho to let autocracy get its way. The people should object to being ruled by extremists of any colour.
 
Likes: tomorton

Atilla

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2006
18,113
2,482
323
#30
There is in my opinion an alarming tendency for a move away from democracy towards dictatorship. This is evident in Turkey under Erdogan, Russia under Putin, the rise of the right wing parties in Europe, North Korea under Kim, China under Xi and even the USA under Trump.

Not good imho to let autocracy get its way. The people should object to being ruled by extremists of any colour.
Haven't you left out Theresa May?

Calling an election because of only a 16 majority with many MPs raising concerns within her own party.

Then there is Rupert Murdoch's press.

Watching the news last week when LibDems announced manifesto and some female presenter on Sky News asks about Tim Farron's views on pregnancy from 10 years ago and about right to life.

FFS - talk about anything else but the manifesto.

Mind numbingly stupid but are you smart aleks aware of the media bias.

Same goes for Labour. Don't talk about the manifesto, let's talk about how Jeremy Corbyn name not mentioned as opposed to the Labour Party. Let's talk about disunity in the Labour party. Question that's asked was how much do you think Corbyn's been damaged by the infighting in the Labour party? We'll come to the manifesto in the last 30 seconds of the interview.

Democracy by the media circus imo.