Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Why Private is Always Better Than Public.


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#41 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,503 posts

Posted 15 March 2014 - 08:42 PM

Most of the privatisation had happened by the time Labour came into power. If Labour win in 2015, I hope they will allow the franchises to lapse and run the railways as a public corporation. East Cost Trains have proved that it is possible for a publicly owned railway to make money.  The taxpayer and the travelling public are being ripped off by the likes of Virgin, First and Stagecoach.

I'm not sure we are being ripped off by those companies because I'm very sure that if the railways were still in public ownership we would have been paying similar prices in order to keep the whole train from crashing.  But personally I was never in favour of privatising either the train or bus services as they were public services and like all public services they existed to serve, not to make profit.  However, in order to afford to run the whole system now without any private sector money at all then there would be costs elsewhere in public services and I'm not so sure that would go down too well.

 

It's interesting to note that more people use trains now than did when they were nationalised. 


Edited by Saintslass, 15 March 2014 - 08:43 PM.


#42 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,503 posts

Posted 15 March 2014 - 08:44 PM

That's because hospitals are rated on "friends and family" ratings and have to achieve a certain percentage of attendees providing a rating. Daft but true!

http://www.nhs.uk/NH...amily-test.aspx

How would you make the NHS accountable to the taxpayer?



#43 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,167 posts

Posted 15 March 2014 - 09:05 PM

I'm not sure we are being ripped off by those companies because I'm very sure that if the railways were still in public ownership we would have been paying similar prices in order to keep the whole train from crashing.  But personally I was never in favour of privatising either the train or bus services as they were public services and like all public services they existed to serve, not to make profit.  However, in order to afford to run the whole system now without any private sector money at all then there would be costs elsewhere in public services and I'm not so sure that would go down too well.

 

It's interesting to note that more people use trains now than did when they were nationalised. 

If what you say is the case why weren't we paying similar sums (in proportion) when the railways were publicly owned? 


"Your a one trick pony Trojan" - Parksider 10th March 2013

#44 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 4,826 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 10:30 AM

The Saintly lass is effectively doing what I advised her to do.  In the seventies and eighties I traveled regularly from Wakefield to London by rail, in real terms it was far cheaper than it is today and the service was much better.


That was 30-40yrs ago; maybe the lack of investment by respective governments during that period has caused prices to rise plus increase in other factors such as energy price rises etc? Whilst not stating that private companies 'don't inflate prices', there are far wider causes than simply stating public-owned trains would be better than what we currently have.

I personally have travelled by train almost every weekend since 2010 all over the country depending on where I have been working; I have no real issues with the service anywhere. Prices are fairly high and they could probably utilise more carriages on some routes, but generally I am happy using the train whilst weekly commuting; far better than being stuck in motorway traffic jams on a Friday evening.

Kings Lynn Black Knights Rugby League Club - http://www.pitchero....nnblackknights/


#45 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 4,503 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 02:45 PM

If what you say is the case why weren't we paying similar sums (in proportion) when the railways were publicly owned? 

If you know anything about the present day rail services you will also know that their central government subsidy has progressively been decreased.  This policy began under Labour and continues.  The idea behind it, apparently, is to ensure that rail users pay more towards rail services than non-rail users.  The rail system has been entirely out of public ownership since 1997, which is now 20 years ago.  Therefore I think one can safely assume that we would be paying higher ticket prices today even for a nationalised service than we were 20 years ago, simply because of inflation, and then in addition to those higher ticket prices we would also be paying through taxation to run the service in its entirety, just as we were doing 20 years ago.  So if you combine the reduction in government (ie taxpayer) subsidy and inflationary pressure you will then find the answer to your question about costs of rail tickets. 



#46 Zagrebred

Zagrebred
  • Players
  • 9 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 05:19 PM

I'd dispute pretty much all the above except buses and trains. The NHS has not been privatised despite PPI and the BBC certainly hasn't.

My Partner works for BBC radio, in the South, and I work for the NHS, and all indications are that both are as good as privitised.

 

What I meant was that not one service has remained in favour of pricing it's business towards the customer, now they have shareholders, they need to take as much as they can from service users whilst taking as much as they can to pass on to those parasite shareholders.

 

Most NHS hospital rebuilds are financed, not by some philanthropic rich person wanting to give something back to the community, as in the pre-NHS days, but a Vulture-istic type business circling for when this desperate government tries to privitise the NHS.

As for the BBC, the only reason they moved to Salford was because of the Cafe culture, resteraunts, and vibrancy in Manchester and the North-West in general was it? (Or was it so they could sell the doughnut and land on prime White City and make a profit?)


Hello London ARL viewers


#47 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,167 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 05:30 PM

If you know anything about the present day rail services you will also know that their central government subsidy has progressively been decreased.  This policy began under Labour and continues.  The idea behind it, apparently, is to ensure that rail users pay more towards rail services than non-rail users.  The rail system has been entirely out of public ownership since 1997, which is now 20 years ago.  Therefore I think one can safely assume that we would be paying higher ticket prices today even for a nationalised service than we were 20 years ago, simply because of inflation, and then in addition to those higher ticket prices we would also be paying through taxation to run the service in its entirety, just as we were doing 20 years ago.  So if you combine the reduction in government (ie taxpayer) subsidy and inflationary pressure you will then find the answer to your question about costs of rail tickets. 

Yes and we are the only European country doing it. Rail fares are cheaper in France, Belgium, Italy, Germany and Holland in my personal experience. The service is better too. 


"Your a one trick pony Trojan" - Parksider 10th March 2013

#48 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,188 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 06:02 PM

My Partner works for BBC radio, in the South, and I work for the NHS, and all indications are that both are as good as privitised.

 

What I meant was that not one service has remained in favour of pricing it's business towards the customer, now they have shareholders, they need to take as much as they can from service users whilst taking as much as they can to pass on to those parasite shareholders.

 

Most NHS hospital rebuilds are financed, not by some philanthropic rich person wanting to give something back to the community, as in the pre-NHS days, but a Vulture-istic type business circling for when this desperate government tries to privitise the NHS.

As for the BBC, the only reason they moved to Salford was because of the Cafe culture, resteraunts, and vibrancy in Manchester and the North-West in general was it? (Or was it so they could sell the doughnut and land on prime White City and make a profit?)

Shareholders eh? Where can I buy a share in the BBC or the NHS? Are they listed on the stock market?

 

I'm not really sure why people who invest capital into a company are considered "parasites". It's almost like companies don't need investors.


Edited by Northern Sol, 16 March 2014 - 06:03 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users