Re: Why ? : Mon Nov 01, 2021 2:47 pm  

Zoo Zoo Boom wrote:

That's exactly how the free market works - your liabilities are limited to the money you invest - if trading doesn't pan out how you had forecast you run out money you go bust. Everyone goes in with their eyes open - if the government hadn't done their due diligence correctly who is to blame? If creditors lend too much money who is at fault?

The government know they have to keep the line running then surely they need to select a franchise that is going to deliver on that basic premise. If no franchise can make a suitable return based on that scenario the government have a problem - they take it back into public ownership costs rise and we all have to pay.

We come back to public ownership - everybody has to pay to keep public services going even if they never use it - yes I get it for education but not for buses and trains.

I don't think you understand. The private operators didn't suffer any consequences at all for getting their sums wrong. Because that's not how privatisation works. We as taxpayers lost out, the other side just walked away from the mess they'd created.

The reality is the East Coast line is one of the huge cash cows of the network. It should be one which cross-subsidises the rest of the network. Quite why you think costs would rise if controlled nationally rather than us keeping all the profits for ourselves/the government is a mystery.

And your belief that the transport network isn't a core part of the national infrastructure which should be looked after by government is a niche one it has to be said. I'm sure you think the same applies to the road network of course.

Re: Why ? : Tue Nov 02, 2021 2:32 pm  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

I don't think you understand. The private operators didn't suffer any consequences at all for getting their sums wrong. Because that's not how privatisation works. We as taxpayers lost out, the other side just walked away from the mess they'd created.

The reality is the East Coast line is one of the huge cash cows of the network. It should be one which cross-subsidises the rest of the network. Quite why you think costs would rise if controlled nationally rather than us keeping all the profits for ourselves/the government is a mystery.

And your belief that the transport network isn't a core part of the national infrastructure which should be looked after by government is a niche one it has to be said. I'm sure you think the same applies to the road network of course.

I think i do understand - the private firms will have lost money and the opportunity cost will be significant. If the government couldn't see it was too good to be true then who is to blame?

The problem with all nationalised industries has always been cost control - look at the NHS, waste in that organisation will be enormous. So why would you think them running ECML they would be able to control costs - what evidence do you have to suggest your confidence is well placed?

You again are struggling with comprehension - the track/roads etc yes I agree should be in public ownership but the companies that operate on them should be private and if there isn't sufficient profit in them to encourage private firms to run them then we really do have a problem because one of two things will happen: Prices rise or public money going in rises. This seems unfair that the general population subsidises certain citizens method of transport.

Re: Why ? : Tue Nov 02, 2021 5:16 pm  

Zoo Zoo Boom wrote:

I think i do understand - the private firms will have lost money and the opportunity cost will be significant.

Opportunity cost is irrelevant. These companies walked away from onerous contracts without any comeback from the people they were contracted with. That is not how a regular market works, or should work. They felt minimal pain.

Zoo Zoo Boom wrote:

The problem with all nationalised industries has always been cost control - look at the NHS, waste in that organisation will be enormous. So why would you think them running ECML they would be able to control costs - what evidence do you have to suggest your confidence is well placed?

Your dogged devotion to this myth is impressive if nothing else. You keep putting out the same stuff but have never supported it with any proof other than it just seems to be some sort of truthiness to you.

So it's time to Put up or shut up. How about maybe an international comparison of administration costs in healthcare?

Re: Why ? : Tue Nov 02, 2021 5:20 pm  

An interesting mini documentary on Britain's rail privatisation. https://youtu.be/DlTq8DbRs4k

An interesting mini documentary on Britain's rail privatisation. https://youtu.be/DlTq8DbRs4k

[Mild Rover]

Re: Why ? : Tue Nov 02, 2021 6:17 pm  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

Opportunity cost is irrelevant. These companies walked away from onerous contracts without any comeback from the people they were contracted with. That is not how a regular market works, or should work. They felt minimal pain.

Your dogged devotion to this myth is impressive if nothing else. You keep putting out the same stuff but have never supported it with any proof other than it just seems to be some sort of truthiness to you.

So it's time to Put up or shut up. How about maybe an international comparison of administration costs in healthcare?

The NHS is pretty efficient at what it does. It’s size and ‘market dominance’ (for want of a better term) gives it impressive purchasing and negotiating power, and the relative simplicity of the system (compared, for example, with the US), means there are fewer stakeholders with their hand in the till.

Obviously, with an elected government made up, at best, of people who don’t care and, at worst, want to see the NHS fail on ideological grounds or to get themselves or their mates a share of the spoils, it is working less well, justifying further efforts to undermine it. But never mind that, look over there at a spurious argument over fish with the dastardly French… it is almost panto season, I suppose.

Our GP suggested to my wife that she go private today for a minor procedure because she won’t be seen until the condition gets much worse because non-urgent stuff won’t be getting to the top of the list for the foreseeable. Come back when you’re worse and it is urgent is an inefficiency, borne of under resourcing (and COVID, in fairness), both in terms of health outcomes and healthcare resource utilisation. Because a lot of people can’t afford to go private and so will have to wait to get worse, pushing somebody else further down the queue.

Re: Why ? : Tue Nov 02, 2021 9:01 pm  

Jack Burton wrote: An interesting mini documentary on Britain's rail privatisation. https://youtu.be/DlTq8DbRs4k 2:56 in that video - which country using its outsized influence EU matters got that clause about separating infrastructure from operators inserted? Yup, it was us, inflicting unwanted and pointless splits on other EU countries to legitimise our own plans for privatisation.

Jack Burton wrote: An interesting mini documentary on Britain's rail privatisation. https://youtu.be/DlTq8DbRs4k 2:56 in that video - which country using its outsized influence EU matters got that clause about separating infrastructure from operators inserted? Yup, it was us, inflicting unwanted and pointless splits on other EU countries to legitimise our own plans for privatisation.

Re: Why ? : Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:18 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

I genuinely want to know why you continue to believe in Boris and this government despite the fact that they continue to lie to you. We have examples with Brexit, he lied to those in Northern Ireland, he lied to the fishing industry and farmers. We now face shortages of goods, medicines and chemicals because he will not allow drivers from the EU to work in the U.K.. He quotes taking back control but is quite happy to include free movement in any new trade deal if asked. We now have the situation with Australia where we have dropped previously agreed green policies. If they were so certain that this would have little impact why do it clandestinely. We also caved into the Australians demand for meat products to be sent to the U.K. from day one rather than the three years we suggested. We are no longer Great, I am sorry but with Boris we are becoming even more irrelevant on the world stage because all countries know that to get a trade deal we will do anything.
He made the pandemic in the U.K. worse resulting in the unnecessary deaths of many thousands of U.K. citizens, he sent them back to care homes untested and what did he say let the bodies stack up or they are most likely to be over 80 so they’ve had a good innings. We did a full pandemic preparation test in 2016, the results of which they won’t publish but still we were ill prepared with PPE and Ventilators. He boasted about shaking hands with patients who may have Covid how do you think the general public would respond they would carry on doing the same. The problem is he knew that none of those he was with had Covid so he was in no danger.
We have probably one of the most inept (being generous)governments awarding contract to their friends and donors, this is despite the fact that what some provided were not of an acceptable standard. The PM himself has been under several investigations so what does he do but appoint an old Bullingdon mate to oversee his actions.
I know this is sadly only part of the transgressions but why do you keep accepting his lies and are willing to pay through your taxes and still vote for him and his government.
Please don’t give me they are all the same because I cannot remember any party operating like this one.

Owen Patterson. People who voted tory obviously admire politicians like this mon.
Don Coleone would be proud of the tories today.

Re: Why ? : Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:52 pm  

Meanwhile Boris pleasures himself by “staring at Women’s Juggs, and Pigs Buttocks”

Re: Why ? : Wed Nov 03, 2021 8:31 pm  

Surely MPs should be banned from have jobs outside politics whilst they're in office (at least)?

Re: Why ? : Thu Nov 04, 2021 1:29 pm  

Jack Burton wrote:

Surely MPs should be banned from have jobs outside politics whilst they're in office (at least)?

I would agree but then you would have to pay them more if you wanted to attract a better calibre of MP.