Bluemanc100
Well-Known Member
I don’t blame you not apologising for not apologising Rascal... you have your beliefs, let’s see if they are upheld by the electorate
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Conservative Party
- Thread starter dave_blue12
- Start date
I don’t blame you not apologising for not apologising Rascal... you have your beliefs, let’s see if they are upheld by the electorate
urban genie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2008
- Messages
- 35,096
He wasn't elected, he was appointed.
A bit like Johnson
Yeah but he hasn't suggested his own enabling act yet
That wasn't really the point though, was it. Someone (Bob I think) made the comment that so what if Corbyn (sorry "Liar Corbyn", for this is the new terminology for politicians we don't like) nationalises a few railways. Well that would be IMO idiotic, when you consider how utterly terrible the railways were *before* privatisation. But putting that to one side, it would not be so bad if it ended there, but it does not.
He'd also nationalise the energy companies given half a chance, wasting billions of taxpayers's money on a pointless exercise for which the funds could be vastly better spend elsewhere on public services. Then there's the water compnies and other utilities. He's also talked about his desire to nationalise the banks. What about other parts of our infrastructure? Why on the airports? Or indeed British Airways? Whilst we're at it, how about Rolls-Royce and Jaguar Landrover.
Corbyn is a (not so) closet Marxist who thinks the means of production should be owned by the workers, by the proletariat. It's an 19th century ideology only applicable - if ever - to the 19th century. That he might be stopped from embarking on such foolishness, is no reason to elect the twat.
Some people better invent a time machine and go back to tell the inhabitants of Cayönü in ancient turkey that they were 8700 years ahead of the game and fools.
A socialist society that lasted 3000 years on a system of no class and had no wars archeologists can find evidence of.
Rascal
El Presidente
So your point is if he is elected, enacting them policies is fine as its within his remit.That wasn't really the point though, was it. Someone (Bob I think) made the comment that so what if Corbyn (sorry "Liar Corbyn", for this is the new terminology for politicians we don't like) nationalises a few railways. Well that would be IMO idiotic, when you consider how utterly terrible the railways were *before* privatisation. But putting that to one side, it would not be so bad if it ended there, but it does not.
He'd also nationalise the energy companies given half a chance, wasting billions of taxpayers's money on a pointless exercise for which the funds could be vastly better spend elsewhere on public services. Then there's the water compnies and other utilities. He's also talked about his desire to nationalise the banks. What about other parts of our infrastructure? Why on the airports? Or indeed British Airways? Whilst we're at it, how about Rolls-Royce and Jaguar Landrover.
Corbyn is a (not so) closet Marxist who thinks the means of production should be owned by the workers, by the proletariat. It's an 19th century ideology only applicable - if ever - to the 19th century. That he might be stopped from embarking on such foolishness, is no reason to elect the twat.
I look forward to the Socialist government, they are mighty fine policies, very sensible and cost effective. The days of ultra free marketisation are coming to a close and about time too, Capitalism was always going to fail, its days are numbered and Utopian Socialism will be the answer.
Banned Tosspot
Well-Known Member
Good luck with that!So your point is if he is elected, enacting them policies is fine as its within his remit.
I look forward to the Socialist government, they are mighty fine policies, very sensible and cost effective. The days of ultra free marketisation are coming to a close and about time too, Capitalism was always going to fail, its days are numbered and Utopian Socialism will be the answer.
Bluemanc100
Well-Known Member
He wasn't elected, he was appointed.
A bit like Johnson
And Gordon Brown...
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Yes, I agree. It's only got another 200 years left. Reports of its demise are greatly exaggerated.So your point is if he is elected, enacting them policies is fine as its within his remit.
I look forward to the Socialist government, they are mighty fine policies, very sensible and cost effective. The days of ultra free marketisation are coming to a close and about time too, Capitalism was always going to fail, its days are numbered and Utopian Socialism will be the answer.
That wasn't really the point though, was it. Someone (Bob I think) made the comment that so what if Corbyn (sorry "Liar Corbyn", for this is the new terminology for politicians we don't like) nationalises a few railways. Well that would be IMO idiotic, when you consider how utterly terrible the railways were *before* privatisation. But putting that to one side, it would not be so bad if it ended there, but it does not.
He'd also nationalise the energy companies given half a chance, wasting billions of taxpayers's money on a pointless exercise for which the funds could be vastly better spend elsewhere on public services. Then there's the water compnies and other utilities. He's also talked about his desire to nationalise the banks. What about other parts of our infrastructure? Why on the airports? Or indeed British Airways? Whilst we're at it, how about Rolls-Royce and Jaguar Landrover.
Corbyn is a (not so) closet Marxist who thinks the means of production should be owned by the workers, by the proletariat. It's an 19th century ideology only applicable - if ever - to the 19th century. That he might be stopped from embarking on such foolishness, is no reason to elect the twat.
Just playing devils advocate here - haven’t the Tories warned Northern Rail they may nationalise it if they don’t buck their ideas up?
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
I wasn't aware of that. It would be a terrible mistake if true imo.Just playing devils advocate here - haven’t the Tories warned Northern Rail they may nationalise it if they don’t buck their ideas up?
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
Just watched the Tories closing down UCS in 1971 on BBC 4. They have got so much to answer for.
As have the UK ship and shipyard owners who had resupplying the world merchant marine market to themselves for a decade after the war and just took the easy money using existing nineteenth century technology. Korea, Japan, Germany etc re-equipped with new plant from scratch and by the 1960s our share had reduced from 60% to 10%.
As have the UK ship and shipyard owners who had resupplying the world merchant marine market to themselves for a decade after the war and just took the easy money using existing nineteenth century technology. Korea, Japan, Germany etc re-equipped with new plant from scratch and by the 1960s our share had reduced from 60% to 10%.
Last edited:
I wasn't aware of that. It would be a terrible mistake if true imo.
Something needs to be done, I get two trains a day, ten a week, and only two were on time all last week and I didn’t get a seat on any of them.
To be honest the seat isn’t my main gripe, being on time is and as long as I’ve got somewhere to stand and hold onto something, not always the case, I’m happy enough.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
I've said many times previously that I think they totally cocked up rail privatisation because for real drive to be more efficient and to improve customer service you really need competition, and yet they implemented it in a way where there is none. Instead replying upon a toothless regulator. Had we had a situation where you had choice between train companies, just like you have choice between airlines for a given route, it would imo have been a while load better. "should I get the 7:30 Virgin train with the great seats and table side service, or maybe the 7:45 GWR with the seat back TV's?" Etc.Something needs to be done, I get two trains a day, ten a week, and only two were on time all last week and I didn’t get a seat on any of them.
To be honest the seat isn’t my main gripe, being on time is and as long as I’ve got somewhere to stand and hold onto something, not always the case, I’m happy enough.
Anyway that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. They should just sack the current operator of things are that bad. The government cannot run a piss up in a brewery and never could. The trains back in the 70's were an absolute disgrace as well.
I've said many times previously that I think they totally cocked up rail privatisation because for real drive to be more efficient and to improve customer service you really need competition, and yet they implemented it in a way where there is none. Instead replying upon a toothless regulator. Had we had a situation where you had choice between train companies, just like you have choice between airlines for a given route, it would imo have been a while load better. "should I get the 7:30 Virgin train with the great seats and table side service, or maybe the 7:45 GWR with the seat back TV's?" Etc.
Anyway that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. They should just sack the current operator of things are that bad. The government cannot run a piss up in a brewery and never could. The trains back in the 70's were an absolute disgrace as well.
I’m not calling for anything in particular as long as it’s better than Northern Rail - who are a total farce and rip people off to stand like sardines on essentially a shitty, smelly bus, on train tracks.
I don’t care if it’s private or public as long as I get value for money and get to work/home on time to be honest.
I’m actually glad the government have threatened the cunts.
My view has always been do what makes sense. It doesn’t make sense to have a private company run the army or police, but it’s worked well in particular industries.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Your analysis is misconceived. The way that railways are utilised simply doesn’t suit the model you espouse. Most people get a train at a particular time, or the next train that is available, and don’t have the luxury of time to choose in the manner you describe - there are also safety considerations to take into account, which limit the scope for a free market to operate on the railways for the ultimate benefit of the consumer.I've said many times previously that I think they totally cocked up rail privatisation because for real drive to be more efficient and to improve customer service you really need competition, and yet they implemented it in a way where there is none. Instead replying upon a toothless regulator. Had we had a situation where you had choice between train companies, just like you have choice between airlines for a given route, it would imo have been a while load better. "should I get the 7:30 Virgin train with the great seats and table side service, or maybe the 7:45 GWR with the seat back TV's?" Etc.
Anyway that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. They should just sack the current operator of things are that bad. The government cannot run a piss up in a brewery and never could. The trains back in the 70's were an absolute disgrace as well.
The reason that privatisation hasn’t worked is not, as you suggest, the implementation, but rather the reality of the landscape within which our train network must operate. There are some industries that are not, for structural, systemic reasons, suited to a fee market model. The railways are one such example and the trains weren’t nearly as bad as you paint, pre-privatisation, certainly not based on my recollection.
Your analysis is misconceived. The way that railways are utilised simply doesn’t suit the model you espouse. Most people get a train at a particular time, or the next train that is available, and don’t have the luxury of time to choose in the manner you describe - there are also safety considerations to take into account, which limit the scope for a free market to operate on the railways for the ultimate benefit of the consumer.
The reason that privatisation hasn’t worked is not, as you suggest, the implementation, but rather the reality of the landscape within which our train network must operate. There are some industries that are not, for structural, systemic reasons, suited to a fee market model. The railways are one such example and the trains weren’t nearly as bad as you paint, pre-privatisation, certainly not based on my recollection.
I’m not old enough to know but were they always late, 40 years old, replicating an old bus and operating at 50% the amount of carriages they need to be?
Because that’s what we’ve got now.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Your analysis is misconceived. The way that railways are utilised simply doesn’t suit the model you espouse. Most people get a train at a particular time, or the next train that is available, and don’t have the luxury of time to choose in the manner you describe - there are also safety considerations to take into account, which limit the scope for a free market to operate on the railways for the ultimate benefit of the consumer.
The reason that privatisation hasn’t worked is not, as you suggest, the implementation, but rather the reality of the landscape within which our train network must operate. There are some industries that are not, for structural, systemic reasons, suited to a fee market model. The railways are one such example and the trains weren’t nearly as bad as you paint, pre-privatisation, certainly not based on my recollection.
Most people get the same train in rush hour because that's the way things are currently. We're things implemented differently then maybe people might change their habits. Also I am not sure what exactly would prevent the 7:30 train being run by one business and the 7:45 by a different one. And neither do I recognise what these structural, systemic reasons are which you suggest prevent successful privatisation. But maybe you know more about it than I do.
But I do remember how awful the trains were when nationalised. The punctuality, reliability and services offered were shocking then as they often are now.
PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
There was some water in Morley Tunnel on Saturday, whole west-east Northern "powerhouse" line grinds to a halt so it can be checked, because we only have 1 line in each direction that can't handle some water.
No manner of privatisation or nationalisation will solve anything until the infrastructure is there to handle truly high speed trains running one after the other, unobstructed by commuter belt plodders.
No manner of privatisation or nationalisation will solve anything until the infrastructure is there to handle truly high speed trains running one after the other, unobstructed by commuter belt plodders.
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
Just playing devils advocate here - haven’t the Tories warned Northern Rail they may nationalise it if they don’t buck their ideas up?
Like when Virgin and Stagecoach walked away from the East Coast line and it had to be run as a nationalised company from 2009 to 2015 and only turned in £1 billion profit
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-temporarily-renationalised-virgin-stagecoach
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
People won’t change their habits to any meaningful extent, as they are driven by convenience and/or expediency.Most people get the same train in rush hour because that's the way things are currently. We're things implemented differently then maybe people might change their habits. Also I am not sure what exactly would prevent the 7:30 train being run by one business and the 7:45 by a different one. And neither do I recognise what these structural, systemic reasons are which you suggest prevent successful privatisation. But maybe you know more about it than I do.
But I do remember how awful the trains were when nationalised. The punctuality, reliability and services offered were shocking then as they often are now.
I don’t believe the 7:30 / 7:45 suggestion you advance would offer any meaningful solutions, and as I’ve already suggested, public safety could be imperilled if train operators are permitted to enter into a broadly unfettered free market, thus significantly undermining the efficacy of the model you espouse.
The structural, systemic reasons are manifest, for reasons which I believe I’ve already adequately set out.
I don’t claim to have any particular advanced state of knowledge, other than I’m a frequent train traveller with work combined with my common sense and broader experience of the commercial world, much like yourself. I get the train to London from Birmingham about three times a month, sometimes more. There are three separate providers on three separate routes and whilst the service isn’t appalling, I don’t feel I have adequate choice as a consumer, it’s too expensive, much of the rolling stock is unsatisfactory and the trains finish far too early back from London (as they do from Manchester). I don’t believe opening each of those lines to competition would improve the situation and possibly make it worse, and possibly less safe, and most certainly the present arrangement doesn’t adequately function as I would expect an effective competitive market to operate - with the features of poor service, inadequate supplies and prices being too high all conspicuously featuring. Out of the three, Virgin is the best, but it can be insanely expensive to the extent where it’s sometimes better for me to drive to Luton Airport Parkway and get the train in from there, which is absurd and cannot be in the national interest, which the type of train service we are subject to should always ultimately serve.
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-gives-up-7bn-windfall-from-european-investment-bank-tq0qskgfc
Conservatives eh. What are they like? We have to tighten our purse strings because of the deficit / debt and yet the Conservatives give up the £7 billion bonus from the European Investment Bank as part of the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.
This sum hasn't been included in the final settlement figure.
Conservatives eh. What are they like? We have to tighten our purse strings because of the deficit / debt and yet the Conservatives give up the £7 billion bonus from the European Investment Bank as part of the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.
This sum hasn't been included in the final settlement figure.
Len Rum
Well-Known Member
For a more balanced perspective please remove the word 'often'.But I do remember how awful the trains were when nationalised. The punctuality, reliability and services offered were shocking then as they often are now.
Thank you.