Current events

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.
 
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
 

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.
 
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:
 
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 !!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

If the people are themselves extremists, then they are getting exactly what they want. This holds true for everyone on your list.
 
Given that Trump would like to do away with Congress and the judiciary, what would you call him? Don't know about May.


Lots of politicians in democracies talk about wanting to do lots of things. Dictators just do them.
 
I think TM prefers no debate and much secrecy, makes parliament a bit of a nuisance along with the HoLs to her. This should be obvious with her conduct and behaviour but not obvious enough.

She rules out early elections and then no sooner as opportunity rears head opts to use the Fixed Term Parliament Act to call elections when both Labour and LibDems putting up little opposition.

She wishes to squash opposition from within her own party ofcourse but states it's the SNP and the others trying to undermine her hard Brexit negotiations.

Evades TV debate knowing she'll be shown up and will look silly answering tough questions with soundbites.

Clearly, Theresa May has decided on a snap general election because she wants to secure a big parliamentary majority before the full consequences of Brexit become 'obvious' to voters. Will the deal be put to parliament or another referendum for the people to vote knowing more precisely what they are voting for? Unlikely. Let the experts in her cabinet decide.

Whatever you want to believe, both US and the UK heading towards some uncharted and very risky times ahead, taken there by two hand holding schmuts imo. Leaders unite. These two have managed to split their two nations in half.

Go figure.


2FJ4kQd.png



She stayed quiet on this most outrageous headlines because it suits her to do so. She's just another pure egotistical politician - wannabe dictator same as Trump contained by the constitutions and our parliamentary systems. For now anyway.
 
If the people are themselves extremists, then they are getting exactly what they want. This holds true for everyone on your list.

The extremism issue is SO important imho. If the people vote in " the *******s " then we are in for a rough time.
 
I think TM prefers no debate and much secrecy, makes parliament a bit of a nuisance along with the HoLs to her. This should be obvious with her conduct and behaviour but not obvious enough.

She rules out early elections and then no sooner as opportunity rears head opts to use the Fixed Term Parliament Act to call elections when both Labour and LibDems putting up little opposition.

She wishes to squash opposition from within her own party ofcourse but states it's the SNP and the others trying to undermine her hard Brexit negotiations.

Evades TV debate knowing she'll be shown up and will look silly answering tough questions with soundbites.

Clearly, Theresa May has decided on a snap general election because she wants to secure a big parliamentary majority before the full consequences of Brexit become 'obvious' to voters. Will the deal be put to parliament or another referendum for the people to vote knowing more precisely what they are voting for? Unlikely. Let the experts in her cabinet decide.

Whatever you want to believe, both US and the UK heading towards some uncharted and very risky times ahead, taken there by two hand holding schmuts imo. Leaders unite. These two have managed to split their two nations in half.

Go figure.


Politicians (in democratic countries) will do anything legal to gain power and maintain power. Why would a political leader not do something that increased their power? Including diverting attention towards/away from particular issues/opponents: as long as lies are not involved she can say what she likes surely?

As for not appearing in TV debates, what politician would appear if they judged they had more to lose than to gain by doing so? Doesn't mean anything significant either way.

In the end, whatever the Government does only happens with the collective will of Parliament. Its our own fault in the end.
 
Given that Trump would like to do away with Congress and the judiciary, what would you call him? Don't know about May.


Also, you're rather de-valuing the very correct opposition to true dictatorial government by implying that if Trump and May are as truly as bad as real dictators, the real dictators are only as bad Trump and May.

The two sets of people are not comparable. I'm sure its better to live under a government you can demonstrate against and vote out in a few years time, than die under one you can't.
 
Politicians (in democratic countries) will do anything legal to gain power and maintain power. Why would a political leader not do something that increased their power? Including diverting attention towards/away from particular issues/opponents: as long as lies are not involved she can say what she likes surely?

As for not appearing in TV debates, what politician would appear if they judged they had more to lose than to gain by doing so? Doesn't mean anything significant either way.

In the end, whatever the Government does only happens with the collective will of Parliament. Its our own fault in the end.


Ladiladiladilalalalalaaaaaaaa

How did Xi Jinping get elected to be President of China? He was chosen by the National People's Congress. The National Congress of the Communist Party of China elects the General Secretary. But the norm for some time has been for the post to go to whoever gets the most votes in elections to the Politburo at the previous National Congress. This seems to be openly contested, with previous General Secretaries unable to choose their heir.


Vladimir Putin moved to Moscow in 1996 and joined President Boris Yeltsin's administration, rising quickly through the ranks and becoming Acting President on 31 December 1999, when Yeltsin resigned. Putin won the subsequent 2000 Presidential election by a 53% to 30% margin, thus avoiding a runoff with his Communist Party of the Russian Federation opponent, Gennady Zyuganov.[8] He was re-elected President in 2004 with 72% of the vote.

What ever floats your boat!!!
 
Ladiladiladilalalalalaaaaaaaa

How did Xi Jinping get elected to be President of China? He was chosen by the National People's Congress. The National Congress of the Communist Party of China elects the General Secretary. But the norm for some time has been for the post to go to whoever gets the most votes in elections to the Politburo at the previous National Congress. This seems to be openly contested, with previous General Secretaries unable to choose their heir.


Vladimir Putin moved to Moscow in 1996 and joined President Boris Yeltsin's administration, rising quickly through the ranks and becoming Acting President on 31 December 1999, when Yeltsin resigned. Putin won the subsequent 2000 Presidential election by a 53% to 30% margin, thus avoiding a runoff with his Communist Party of the Russian Federation opponent, Gennady Zyuganov.[8] He was re-elected President in 2004 with 72% of the vote.

What ever floats your boat!!!


I don't understand your point.
 
Top