Jump to content


Rugby League World
League Express
Garry Schofield Testimonial Brochure (Signed)


Photo
- - - - -

Why Private is Always Better Than Public.


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#41 Saintslass

Saintslass
  • Coach
  • 6,363 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
  • 6,363 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
  • 16,332 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? 


"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#44 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 5,861 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
  • 6,363 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
  • 16,332 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. 


"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#48 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 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.


#49 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 16,332 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 08:57 PM

East Coast trains, a profitable publicly owned railway, privatised by this government in March 2015, has according to BBC You and Yours increased some fares by 300%!


"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#50 Biff

Biff
  • Banned
  • 55 posts

Posted 04 July 2015 - 08:53 AM

The Four Yorkshiremen sketch lives.

#51 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 16,332 posts

Posted 04 July 2015 - 10:30 AM

The Four Yorkshiremen sketch lives.

?


"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#52 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 22,254 posts

Posted 04 July 2015 - 10:37 AM

British Railways was bad...v. bad, and that is based on experience, not on some outdated and discredited Clause 4 mythology. Don't get taken in by claims about East Coast, either. Not comparing like with like.

Used to travel occasionally to and from from Clifton Junction to Salford in the late 50s by slow, dirty, outdated and decrepit stream trainIn 1971 I spent 6 months commuting daily from Farnborough to Waterloo, and in subsequent yeas fairly regularly from Mancheter to Euston. Compare Manchester Piccadilly and Euston of those days with today.

Life is like a sewer: What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.


#53 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 22,254 posts

Posted 04 July 2015 - 10:39 AM

I travelled from Bristol to Leeds last summer, the food ran out after Birmingham.  The train was half an hour late into Leeds, but not to worry the "train manager" told us, they'd make it up between Leeds and Newcastle (the train was travelling from Penzance to Aberdeen)  I could recount several other "advenures" on the privatised railway.  British Rail may have been bad but the private companies are worse.



No they are not.

Life is like a sewer: What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.


#54 Farmduck

Farmduck
  • Coach
  • 1,855 posts

Posted 04 July 2015 - 10:43 AM

?

 

From "At Last the 1948 Show"

 



#55 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 7,362 posts

Posted 04 July 2015 - 11:42 AM

British Railways was bad...v. bad, and that is based on experience, not on some outdated and discredited Clause 4 mythology. Don't get taken in by claims about East Coast, either. Not comparing like with like.

Used to travel occasionally to and from from Clifton Junction to Salford in the late 50s by slow, dirty, outdated and decrepit stream trainIn 1971 I spent 6 months commuting daily from Farnborough to Waterloo, and in subsequent yeas fairly regularly from Mancheter to Euston. Compare Manchester Piccadilly and Euston of those days with today.


It's called progress. Over time technology improves.

The current model of running the railways is fragmented, extremely wasteful and inefficient. BR in the 80s was rated as one of the most efficient railways in the world, I think only Denmark's was better. BR was also very good at technological development producing the world's fastest diesel train, the HST, which is still going strong and the first tilting train, APT (yes it wasn't that great, but it was pushed into service too soon and if anything suffered from too much new technology in one go). Both of which were developed on a shoestring. The APT tilting mechanism was eventually copied by the Italians and flogged back to us in the shape of the Pendalino.
"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#56 Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed
  • Moderator
  • 6,562 posts

Posted 04 July 2015 - 12:32 PM

In some areas the railways have improved massively, St Pancras, Manchester Piccadilly stations for example, some great new trains, HS1, etc, etc.

 

However, prices have shot up, some infrastructure projects are massively behind, some trains are the same as BR days.

 

So I think the experience of the railways is 'mixed'

 

If I go from the magnificent St Pancras, I catch a nice new voyager train to Sheffield, change at the nice station to a good to decent Trans Pennine Express, get off at the great Manchester Piccadilly station, walk or Tram to the dismal Manchester Victoria (they are doing it up), catch an awful Pacer train to Rochdale... and the price has doubled (at least, in 20 years).


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

#57 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 18,053 posts

Posted 04 July 2015 - 01:35 PM

The thing with the railways is that the prices have gone up, and up and up year after year above RPI and in some years by shockingly above RPI.  I'd like to see some value for that now please.  When I go to London, I have to sit in ancient old InterCity trains with ratty seats that are years beyond replacement timescales, airconditioning that works perfectly in winter but dies at the first sign of 20C and above, toilets that are more often out of service than in and genuinely filthy interiors.  And that's the first-class carriages.  Standard class is even worse.  The line I'm on invested quite a bit in wifi for the trains but then charge it at usurious rates for standard class.

 

So, what I see for my privatised rail is a real-terms doubling of my fare in a decade to travel on ever more congested ancient trains that have had no investment in them bar things that make more money for the train operator.  Yep, private is far better than public.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#58 WearyRhino

WearyRhino
  • Coach
  • 4,015 posts

Posted 04 July 2015 - 01:46 PM

No they are not.


You want to provide an objective measure that proves that? You know, customer satisfaction, value for money, that sort of thing.

LUNEW.jpg


#59 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 16,332 posts

Posted 04 July 2015 - 03:59 PM

British Railways was bad...v. bad, and that is based on experience, not on some outdated and discredited Clause 4 mythology. Don't get taken in by claims about East Coast, either. Not comparing like with like.

Used to travel occasionally to and from from Clifton Junction to Salford in the late 50s by slow, dirty, outdated and decrepit stream trainIn 1971 I spent 6 months commuting daily from Farnborough to Waterloo, and in subsequent yeas fairly regularly from Mancheter to Euston. Compare Manchester Piccadilly and Euston of those days with today.

I used to use the East Coast line in the seventies and it was very good.  When GNER held the franchise the service was dreadful.  I never travelled when National Express held the franchise, but I've been twice with East Coast Trains before privatisation and the service was good, the fares reasonable.  East Coast trains were providing a good service and making a profit for the taxpayer  too, which is something neither of their predecessors seemed able to do. What do the Tories do? They can't have this.  All their pet theories disproved. Privatise it ASAP.  


"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#60 getdownmonkeyman

getdownmonkeyman
  • Coach
  • 1,949 posts

Posted 04 July 2015 - 06:10 PM

Network Rail, a primarily tax payer funded organisation seems to be doing a decent, not great, service.

Operators, by and large heavily criticised, providing a poor to decent service, with ever increasing charges.

Seems the tax payer is getting the raw end of the deal.

My own experiences; West Coast main line with Virgin has been pretty good, expensive, but pretty good. Liverpool to Manchester; chronic lack of carriage provision, certainly pre-8am, to the point of being dangerous. Pretty blood dear too, nine quid for a twenty five minutes journey.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users