Would the country be better off...

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

So, if we adopt this Nordic model, all will be sweetness and light?

Wont happen the country would have to find about $1 trillion to purchase all the stuff back. Yet everybody forgets how shit all our stuff was when it was state owned

Ah yes, I well remember being whisked along in air conditioned comfort on the old British Rail, the sandwiches were to die for, and plenty of people probably did. The Morris Marina from British Leyland was a must have for any discerning motorist and 6 months isn't that long to wait until the Post Office installed a telephone.

Where in presentation about 'Socialist Policies' did I mention renationalisation of the Motor Industry? Thats not the model adopted abroad and if you remember the Swedish Govt allowed SAAB to go under........

Social Policies deal with the basic needs of each individual - Health, Welfare, Security of Property & Employment, Education

Lets look at transport and in particular the comments about 'good old British Rail'

Can it be right that a Singapore company runs the London buses ? Transport for London buses are owned by the ComforDelGro Corporation Ltd of Singapore ( might be interesting to see where they pay their taxes as well).
The RATP Group a French company run the Manchester Metrolink and bus services in Epsom and London.
Arriva is owned by Deutsche Bahn who in turn are owned by the GERMAN national railway and GERMAN Government ? Railways ( subsidised) buses,
(subsidised), coaches and also in the running for the West coast line ?

Merseyrail are owned by a Dutch railway company

So other countries can see the profits ( and subsidies ) in our transport system yet our own government can't ???


Lets look at whats happened since the privatisation of 'British Rail' or Let’s look at the facts;

Britain’s railway system is one of the most expensive in the European Union.

Britain’s railways cost 11 billion a year to run, 5 billion of which is paid for by the taxpayer.If British Rail had the same amount of government subsidy our railways have now, we would have one of the best rail systems in the world, with a single company owning the trains, the track, the system maintenance and the ticketing making it cheaper to operate resulting in efficient services and affordable fares

Britain’s privatized railways system now costs the UK taxpayer more than when it was state-owned.

There has been a five-fold rise in government subsidy since privatisation of the railways.

Britain’s rail system is the most inefficient in Europe.

According to the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), Britain’s rail system is up to 40% less efficient than European rivals including Germany, Ireland and Belgium.

Britain’s railways are less safe than their European counterparts.

According to the International Union of Railways, Britain has 0.36 deaths per billion kilometres compared with Italy’s 0.10, France’s 0.27 and Germany’s 0.31.

Britain’s rail ticket prices are the highest in the European Union.

According to the commuter watchdog, Passenger Focus, Britain’s rail passengers are paying 50% more than rail users on the continent.

And now the coalition government has announced plans to allow rail fares to go up by as much as 8% in England- with some rail companies setting even higher rates.


Don't even get on to the subject of Welfare and the way we have abandoned the Elderly

 

[Chancy Termites]

So state-owned = socialist, privately owned = not socialist?

 

[KpxSte]

The main issue seems to be regarding the low paid and the fact that people can't survive on the minimum wage and must therefore be helped by the state in the form of higher wages and/or welfare supplements. Increasing wage costs ie to a living wage, make us even more uncompetitive on the global markets and result in firms moving jobs abroad, examples of which we see on a daily basis. What little industry and manufacturing we have left is dependent on specialised experience and expertise, qualities that are being gained and learnt all the time by our foreign competitors.
I agree with the principle of a minimum wage, but for the overall benefit of the country, it needs to be as low as possible. The standard of life whilst earning the minimum wage should be improved by lowering the cost of living ie by lowering taxes, housing costs and energy bills.
We should also be ensuring that the rules surrounding paye taxes apply to everybody, regardless of how that income is earned and then combine tax evasion and avoidance into one illegal act.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Wont happen the country would have to find about $1 trillion to purchase all the stuff back. Yet everybody forgets how shit all our stuff was when it was state owned

Ah yes, I well remember being whisked along in air conditioned comfort on the old British Rail, the sandwiches were to die for, and plenty of people probably did. The Morris Marina from British Leyland was a must have for any discerning motorist and 6 months isn't that long to wait until the Post Office installed a telephone.

Where in presentation about 'Socialist Policies' did I mention renationalisation of the Motor Industry? Thats not the model adopted abroad and if you remember the Swedish Govt allowed SAAB to go under........

Social Policies deal with the basic needs of each individual - Health, Welfare, Security of Property & Employment, Education

Lets look at transport and in particular the comments about 'good old British Rail'

Can it be right that a Singapore company runs the London buses ? Transport for London buses are owned by the ComforDelGro Corporation Ltd of Singapore ( might be interesting to see where they pay their taxes as well).
The RATP Group a French company run the Manchester Metrolink and bus services in Epsom and London.
Arriva is owned by Deutsche Bahn who in turn are owned by the GERMAN national railway and GERMAN Government ? Railways ( subsidised) buses,
(subsidised), coaches and also in the running for the West coast line ?

Merseyrail are owned by a Dutch railway company

So other countries can see the profits ( and subsidies ) in our transport system yet our own government can't ???


Lets look at whats happened since the privatisation of 'British Rail' or Let’s look at the facts;

Britain’s railway system is one of the most expensive in the European Union.

Britain’s railways cost 11 billion a year to run, 5 billion of which is paid for by the taxpayer.If British Rail had the same amount of government subsidy our railways have now, we would have one of the best rail systems in the world, with a single company owning the trains, the track, the system maintenance and the ticketing making it cheaper to operate resulting in efficient services and affordable fares

Britain’s privatized railways system now costs the UK taxpayer more than when it was state-owned.

There has been a five-fold rise in government subsidy since privatisation of the railways.

Britain’s rail system is the most inefficient in Europe.

According to the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), Britain’s rail system is up to 40% less efficient than European rivals including Germany, Ireland and Belgium.

Britain’s railways are less safe than their European counterparts.

According to the International Union of Railways, Britain has 0.36 deaths per billion kilometres compared with Italy’s 0.10, France’s 0.27 and Germany’s 0.31.

Britain’s rail ticket prices are the highest in the European Union.

According to the commuter watchdog, Passenger Focus, Britain’s rail passengers are paying 50% more than rail users on the continent.

And now the coalition government has announced plans to allow rail fares to go up by as much as 8% in England- with some rail companies setting even higher rates.


Don't even get on to the subject of Welfare and the way we have abandoned the Elderly

Cant defend the rail system in this country as its pants but it was pants before it went private its just expensive and pants now.
As I pointed out though we just could not afford to renationalise it all. Maybe the rail by just not renewing contracts but that would take years and make everything worse during that time. Just buying back all the water would cost around $50 billion

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

So state-owned = socialist, privately owned = not socialist?

Nope.....a Socialist government promotes Entrepreneurship and does not compete against the private sector. However it does not allow the basic utilities to be owned by the private sector, so Water, Power, Transport, education, Security (Police and Army), health remain under the ownership of the state. This doesn't mean that they don't outsource some functions so for example burst pipes or the installation of new power lines could be done by private business.

Socialist governments encourage and need profitable business' because they levy high taxation rates to pay for the running of the 'Social' state. eg Old Peoples Homes, reasonable State pension provision etc. Look at this from Wikipedia

The Nordic Model

An elaborate social safety net in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare.[7]
Strong property rights, contract enforcement, and overall ease of doing business.[8]
Public pension schemes.[7]
Low barriers to free trade.[8] This is combined with collective risk sharing (social programmes, labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.[7]
Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.[7]
Low levels of corruption.[7] In Transparency International's 2012 Corruption Perceptions Index all five Nordic countries were ranked among the 11 least corrupt of 176 evaluated countries.[9]
High percentage of workers belonging to a labour union. In 2010, labour union density was 69.9% in Finland, 68.3% in Sweden, and 54.8% in Norway. In comparison, labour union density was 12.9% in Mexico and 11.3% in the United States.[10]
A partnership between employers, trade unions and the government, whereby these social partners negotiate the terms to regulating the workplace among themselves, rather than the terms being imposed by law.[11] Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination, while Finland is ranked the least flexible.[7] The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms.[7] At the same time, reforms and favourable economic development seem to have reduced unemployment, which has traditionally been higher. Denmark's Social Democrats managed to push through reforms in 1994 and 1996 (see flexicurity).
Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6% reflects very high public spending.[8] One key reason for public spending is the very large number of public employees. These employees work in various fields including education, healthcare, and for the government itself. They often have lifelong job security and make up around a third of the workforce (more than 38% in Denmark). The public sector's low productivity growth has been compensated by an increase in the private sector’s share of government financed services which has included outsourcing.[7] Public spending in social transfers such as unemployment benefits and early-retirement programmes is high. In 2001, the wage-based unemployment benefits were around 90% of wage in Denmark and 80% in Sweden, compared to 75% in the Netherlands and 60% in Germany. The unemployed were also able to receive benefits several years before reductions, compared to quick benefit reduction in other countries.
Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway in comparison to the OECD average.[12]
Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are among the world's highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46% in 2011),[13] and Finland (43.3%), compared to non-Nordic countries like Germany (34.7%), Canada (33.5%), and Ireland (30.5%).


All this is provided by Sweden who are the 4th most competitive country in the world and yet they have the world's eighth-highest per capita income.<br /><br />-- Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:19 pm --<br /><br />

So state-owned = socialist, privately owned = not socialist?

Nope.....a Socialist government promotes Entrepreneurship and does not compete against the private sector. However it does not allow the basic utilities to be owned by the private sector, so Water, Power, Transport, education, Security (Police and Army), health remain under the ownership of the state. This doesn't mean that they don't outsource some functions so for example burst pipes or the installation of new power lines could be done by private business.

Socialist governments encourage and need profitable business' because they levy high taxation rates to pay for the running of the 'Social' state. eg Old Peoples Homes, reasonable State pension provision etc. Look at this from Wikipedia

The Nordic Model

An elaborate social safety net in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare.[7]
Strong property rights, contract enforcement, and overall ease of doing business.[8]
Public pension schemes.[7]
Low barriers to free trade.[8] This is combined with collective risk sharing (social programmes, labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.[7]
Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.[7]
Low levels of corruption.[7] In Transparency International's 2012 Corruption Perceptions Index all five Nordic countries were ranked among the 11 least corrupt of 176 evaluated countries.[9]
High percentage of workers belonging to a labour union. In 2010, labour union density was 69.9% in Finland, 68.3% in Sweden, and 54.8% in Norway. In comparison, labour union density was 12.9% in Mexico and 11.3% in the United States.[10]
A partnership between employers, trade unions and the government, whereby these social partners negotiate the terms to regulating the workplace among themselves, rather than the terms being imposed by law.[11] Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination, while Finland is ranked the least flexible.[7] The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms.[7] At the same time, reforms and favourable economic development seem to have reduced unemployment, which has traditionally been higher. Denmark's Social Democrats managed to push through reforms in 1994 and 1996 (see flexicurity).
Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6% reflects very high public spending.[8] One key reason for public spending is the very large number of public employees. These employees work in various fields including education, healthcare, and for the government itself. They often have lifelong job security and make up around a third of the workforce (more than 38% in Denmark). The public sector's low productivity growth has been compensated by an increase in the private sector’s share of government financed services which has included outsourcing.[7] Public spending in social transfers such as unemployment benefits and early-retirement programmes is high. In 2001, the wage-based unemployment benefits were around 90% of wage in Denmark and 80% in Sweden, compared to 75% in the Netherlands and 60% in Germany. The unemployed were also able to receive benefits several years before reductions, compared to quick benefit reduction in other countries.
Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway in comparison to the OECD average.[12]
Overall tax burdens (as a percentage of GDP) are among the world's highest; Sweden (51.1%), Denmark (46% in 2011),[13] and Finland (43.3%), compared to non-Nordic countries like Germany (34.7%), Canada (33.5%), and Ireland (30.5%).


All this is provided by Sweden who are the 4th most competitive country in the world and yet they have the world's eighth-highest per capita income.

 

[The Flash]

Britain’s railways are less safe than their European counterparts.

According to the International Union of Railways, Britain has 0.36 deaths per billion kilometres compared with Italy’s 0.10, France’s 0.27 and Germany’s 0.31.

0.36 deaths per billion kilometres? Are you serious? So for every billion kilometres of train travel, 1/3 of a person dies?

So the true figure is really 1 person dies for every THREE BILLION kilometres travelled?

It's a pathetic stat and is scaremongering.

Put it another way:

You have a 1 in three billion chance of being killed on the trains. Or, you are 214 times more likely to win the lottery than you are of dying on a train.

 

[bluevengence]

Cant defend the rail system in this country as its pants but it was pants before it went private its just expensive and pants now.
As I pointed out though we just could not afford to renationalise it all. Maybe the rail by just not renewing contracts but that would take years and make everything worse during that time. Just buying back all the water would cost around $50 billion[/quo


Funny how we nationalised East coast rail when National expess fooked it up
,now under state control it...well read for yourself


<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/18/east-coast-rail-line-taxpayer-subsidy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/1 ... er-subsidy</a>



East Coast rail service costs taxpayers less than private lines, report reveals

Labour and unions seize on regulator's analysis which shows state-run service requires smaller subsidy than private lines


Gwyn Topham, transport correspondent

The Guardian, Thursday 18 April 2013 18.22 BS



The government plans to put the East Coast service back into private hands by February 2015. Photograph: Alamy


The state-run East Coast rail service requires less public subsidy than any of the 15 privately run rail franchises in Britain, according to a report from the rail regulator.

The report comes after the coalition government pledged to push the London to Edinburgh line back into private hands before the next election, with a new operator taking over by February 2015.

The route has been under the control of the Department for Transport since November 2009 after the transport company National Express pulled out.

While about half of all train operating companies paid premiums to the government last year, the report shows that passengers on every franchise were in effect subsidised when money spent on infrastructure was included. However, the net subsidy for East Coast was 1% of the line's income, compared with an average of 32%.

The government paid £1.155bn directly to the private companies last year, while receiving £1.105bn back in franchise payments, £177m of which came from Directly Operated Railways, which runs the East Coast line. Train operators had income after expenditure of £305m.

Labour and rail unions said the report "exposed the truth" behind privatised rail companies. Maria Eagle, the shadow transport secretary, said: "These companies are paying less to the government than they are receiving in subsidies, even excluding the £3.9bn spent on infrastructure through Network Rail.

"It makes no sense for the Tory-led government to prioritise privatising the InterCity East Coast service over getting the rest of the industry back on track.

"East Coast makes one of the highest payments to government, receives the least subsidy and is the only route on which all profits are reinvested in services."

Manuel Cortes, leader of the TSSA rail union, said: "These figures show just why ministers are in such a rush to sell off the East Coast line before the next election. They demolish the Tory myth that private franchises are cheaper than publicly run franchises."

However, the Association of Train Operating Companies claimed it was "a vast oversimplification to benchmark the financial performance of one franchise with another".

Michael Roberts, its chief executive, said: "Passengers and taxpayers are benefiting from a booming railway that is delivering better value for money.

"The railways are relying on less taxpayer support and a lower level of revenue per journey as train companies succeed in encouraging more passengers to travel by train. Train companies have reduced their unit costs in real terms, playing their part along with industry partners and government in improving rail's efficiency."

A spokesman for East Coast said: "The facts speak for themselves. We're also proud of our record of improving customer satisfaction to the highest level ever on the line and ensuring consistently better train punctuality, as well as returning £640m to the taxpayer over the last three and a half years. We estimate that this figure will be in excess of £800m by the end of this current financial year."

The Office of Rail Regulation's report also reveals that passengers are shouldering a higher proportion of the cost of Britain's railways. Fares accounted for 57.6% of the industry's overall income in 2011-12 as state funding dropped almost 2%.

Passengers on Scottish and Welsh services received a subsidy of £7.67 and £9.15 respectively for an average journey, compared with £2.27 in England. Total passenger numbers on the railways increased by 7.2% in 2012.

ORR chief executive Richard Price said the report "shone a light" on the funding of the rail network. "Taxpayers and rail customers have every right to know exactly where their money goes and what it delivers."

 

[southern muppet]

To be fair the railways would look a lot better if they were were privatised properly rather than privatised in a way that benefited Tory 'donors' and various politicians' cronies.

If anybody could run a service on any line, rather than this bidding for monopolies crap, we'd see improved standards and prices because there'd be much more incentive due to constant competition. Just common sense really regardless of your political views. What we got, was the worst of both worlds.