Cheshire Rover
Member
https://youtu.be/8G3B6T4GRVM
For those of us that remember BR..
For those of us that remember BR..
Last edited:
At the risk of repeating myself, massive savings for taxpayers as well as lower fares, by ending the inherent inefficiency of fragmentation. I'm struggling to convince myself that your defence of rail privatisation is anything other than ideological.
Airfields, or municipal airports, are different entities to international airports. The facilities they provide are completely different. Rialto was a general aviation airfield that didn't even have a tower, let alone any form of terminal facilities so maybe you should review your own example.No airfield in the US is kept open if it is making a loss. In Los Angeles there is a local Municipal airfield called Rialto that was owned by the local authority that was making a huge loss. They closed it and sold off the land for redevelopment. Under a socialist system that would sacrilege, you would have to use taxpayers money to keep it open.
Massive savings for taxpayers? Not sure where they'd be coming from; I don't think you have much of a clue as to what really goes on.
Inherent inefficiency of fragmentation? Do you have any proof of this assertion? Bigger does not always mean more efficient.
Yes yes I know, immediately you would save billions of £'s, but you have yet to say how this money would be miraculously saved. Suddenly billions of £'s would be pumped back into the railways, all the trains would be immaculate, signal failures would be a thing of the past etc etc. Yes I know in your eyes nationalisation is a bed of roses but in the real world ticket prices would not magically drop, and the money would not be pumped back into the system.
http://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/0913a84d-b740-4111-b6f8-bf6470e2d7b7
Since the official ORR figures show an enormous rise in taxpayer funding to the railways since privatisation (the opposite of what was promised by the Tory government), it logically follows that a return to the unified publicly owned model we had under BR would eliminate the inefficiency, duplication and waste of the present structure.
Far from being logical, you're using a non-sequitur as the basis of your argument. You are taking the fact that taxpayer funding has increased in the time since privatisation and reaching the unjustified conclusion that it has been caused by privatisation. This is the classic assumption that correlation means causation and is one of the oldest logical errors in the book.
I've often thought, for example, that InterCity, Network SouthEast and ScotRail should have been privatised as complete organisations rather than being split into a twenty individual operators.
So overall, the average subsidy per passenger hasn't changed much over the time?
So overall, the average subsidy per passenger hasn't changed much over the time?
I wonder where all the money has gone.
Does anyone have any figures for the total number of rail employees paid more than £100k before privatisation and today. Just as a comparison.
I wonder where all the money has gone.
Does anyone have any figures for the total number of rail employees paid more than £100k before privatisation and today. Just as a comparison.
I wonder where all the money has gone.
Does anyone have any figures for the total number of rail employees paid more than £100k before privatisation and today. Just as a comparison.
How many senior managers in the NHS earn more than the Prime Minister, how many civil servants earn more than £100k?
Probably a lot less than the American healthcare system.How many senior managers in the NHS earn more than the Prime Minister, how many civil servants earn more than £100k?
Tfl recently complained that it lost staff to overseas rail projects I don't know how true it is.The argument always seems to be that they claim they have to pay market rates. But there is only a very limited market. Hence you could easily advertise these jobs capped at £100k and still get some very strong candidates.
Fair enough, but how would you have incentivised them? I assume privatising would involve that, otherwise why do it?
How do we incentivise them now?
I've often thought, for example, that InterCity, Network SouthEast and ScotRail should have been privatised as complete organisations rather than being split into a twenty individual operators.
Fair enough, but how would you have incentivised them? I assume privatising would involve that, otherwise why do it?
Given the abrasive relationship between railway management and staff, is that possibly a case of "I'm not paid enough to deal with these people"?matt_world2004 said:Tfl recently complained that it lost staff to overseas rail projects I don't know how true it is.
I hate this comparison to the PM's salary - his benefits are way more than his salary - rent free accommodation in central London and at Chequers, free travel to and from anywhere except when on holiday - an enhanced pension - staff at beck and call.
Given the abrasive relationship between railway management and staff, is that possibly a case of "I'm not paid enough to deal with these people"?
Well working in the sooty rainy **** of London it becomes awful tempting to think hmmn Barcelona Metro has some positions going.
Residential staff travel benefits are a good way of restraining wages. If you think someone working for First Great Western at paddington and they live in Reading. Free travel operated by the company they work for is worth about an extra £6 000 a year to them; as they would be paying tax on top of whatever the extra wages are to cover their travel costs. Also with smart card ticketing it can be increasingly used to identify attendance and punctuality issues.