@Philip_Thompson your problem is that you’re in your “outside of London” bubble. I have also always driven to work, but I live in the North East, where public transport is shite and there isn’t really any other option.
You have to recognise that for 15 odd million+ people who live in the London commuter belt, rail transport is vital, and cannot be replaced simply with bicycles and buses - this is demonstrated by the carnage the TFL rail strikes cause.
Outside of London isn't a bubble, its the overwhelming majority of the country. Inside London is the bubble. c The fact is that people found alternative ways of getting about when they didn't want to use British Rail and have found alternative ways (including not getting about) this year when they wanted to do so.
Just because Rail is convenient does not make it the only option.
Course it is. You are unable to recognise that circumstances are different in different parts of the country. You are by definition guilty of “bubble thinking”, just the same as those who live in London or other big cities who can’t grasp why some people would need a car in 2020.
If you live in rural Northumberland, you cannot get by without a car. It’s just impossible to live a normal life without one.
If you live in central London, or perhaps central Manchester, having a car is a luxury at best, a huge inconvenience at worst.
The problem on both sides of the “bubble” is not being able to recognise that circumstances differ.
Yes. And people can choose to live in Central London or can choose to live in Northumberland and if they're not happy they're capable of moving.
Nothing is set in stone.
In the short to medium term its very much set in concrete though. Whilst individually we can choose where to live, collectively we have to live where the houses already are, you cant move a million people out of London into Northumberland without causing absolute chaos.
Millions don't have to move, there's plenty of alternative transport available and I forgot buses as an option even within London too. As has been seen with the collapse in traveller numbers this year that some people are bemoaning there are alternatives available if people want to take them. The idea that people have to take the train is a fallacy - people choose to take it because its convenient, 3x the number who took it pre-privatisation, that doesn't mean it is their only option.
Think about it logically. If 3x the number of passengers are using rail now than pre-privatisation and if they are doing so because they have no alternative then what were the other two-thirds doing under nationalisation?
Your logic makes no sense and doesn't match the facts.
Im not specifically talking about trains, Im pointing out that "people can move out if they dont like it" doesnt work on a national level. Therefore policies need to be thought out to include all parts of the country including London. Those who ignore parts of the country because they dont like them or they are different areas are unhelpful, whether its post industrial towns or a capital city that are being excluded.
James Forsyth reports there is a big rebellion on the way to the planning law changes in the tory ranks.
If the lib dems play it right that could be a way back into the leafier English constituencies where they used to be strong.
The planning reform is the most important thing the government needs to do, bar virus and brexit.
Yes, it will cost a few councillors to the nimby party, but it will also generate huge growth in construction and create a lot of jobs during a recession, bringing in much-needed government revenues.
The political point, that people aged 35-45 who don’t own property are disproportionally non-Tory voters, needs to be made clear to the rebel MPs. Getting more homeowners needs to be a high priority for a government seeking re-election.
If I am honest, I suspect its a ploy. The rebels want a quid pro quo on immigration law, boats in the channel, BBC, maybe masks? and redwaller representation in cabinet.
@Philip_Thompson your problem is that you’re in your “outside of London” bubble. I have also always driven to work, but I live in the North East, where public transport is shite and there isn’t really any other option.
You have to recognise that for 15 odd million+ people who live in the London commuter belt, rail transport is vital, and cannot be replaced simply with bicycles and buses - this is demonstrated by the carnage the TFL rail strikes cause.
Outside of London isn't a bubble, its the overwhelming majority of the country. Inside London is the bubble.
The fact is that people found alternative ways of getting about when they didn't want to use British Rail and have found alternative ways (including not getting about) this year when they wanted to do so.
Just because Rail is convenient does not make it the only option.
Course it is. You are unable to recognise that circumstances are different in different parts of the country. You are by definition guilty of “bubble thinking”, just the same as those who live in London or other big cities who can’t grasp why some people would need a car in 2020.
If you live in rural Northumberland, you cannot get by without a car. It’s just impossible to live a normal life without one.
If you live in central London, or perhaps central Manchester, having a car is a luxury at best, a huge inconvenience at worst.
The problem on both sides of the “bubble” is not being able to recognise that circumstances differ.
Yes. And people can choose to live in Central London or can choose to live in Northumberland and if they're not happy they're capable of moving.
Nothing is set in stone.
And you keep calling London a bubble, why is it any more or less of a bubble than anywhere else?
Let's be honest, you hate London because it doesn't follow your chosen political viewpoint.
I see the "Biden has dementia" meme has come out to play early in this thread.
I seem to remember a lot of discussion in 2016 with some people (not necessarily on here) adamant that Clinton had some sort of neurological condition that would impair her presidency. Funny how that immediately vanished on November 4th and has never been heard of again.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
What evidence that they don't? This graph says otherwise.
What does that graph show? The major spike upwards starts at the point where Railtrack's board had decided they were a property company. A series of disasters based on lax infrastructure maintenance and the signing of an upgrade contract that from an engineering perspective was impossible bankrupted them. That is not a success of privatisation. At the same time we had a series of franchises falling over due to their ability to understand that a train is not a bus. That is not a success of privatisation. At the same time the cost to the taxpayer quintupled despite an explosion in fares. That is not a success of privatisation. At the same time the technical expertise was allowed to retire and not replaced so that when investment into technology was needed we had forgotten how to do things like resignalling schemes and electrification schemes leading to massive delays and costs. That is not a success of privatisation.
And my perennial question - what was privatised? What is almost always referred to are passenger rail operations. A few private operators exist - Grand Central, Hull Trains, Heathrow Express. Otherwise every legacy operation is not and never has been privately owned. Virgin Trains et al owned a fixed term contract to run trains. They didn't buy assets the way that utilities were privatised.
Yes it's nonsense, sadly, from Philip.
Network Rail, the nationalised track operator, came into force in 2002.
His own graph shows strong growth under nationalisation.
Recent problems have been significantly because Network Rail proved unable to finish its projects on time.
And Railtrack went bust, because it failed to implement strict enough safety procedures when it was maintaining the tracks. What would you prefer, delayed projects or lives?
That’s going to be another Monza, there are some comments that it may even be quicker and we’ll see the fastest lap ever by an F1 car. It’s short as well, less than a minute round for a 90 lap race.
@Philip_Thompson your problem is that you’re in your “outside of London” bubble. I have also always driven to work, but I live in the North East, where public transport is shite and there isn’t really any other option.
You have to recognise that for 15 odd million+ people who live in the London commuter belt, rail transport is vital, and cannot be replaced simply with bicycles and buses - this is demonstrated by the carnage the TFL rail strikes cause.
Outside of London isn't a bubble, its the overwhelming majority of the country. Inside London is the bubble. c The fact is that people found alternative ways of getting about when they didn't want to use British Rail and have found alternative ways (including not getting about) this year when they wanted to do so.
Just because Rail is convenient does not make it the only option.
Course it is. You are unable to recognise that circumstances are different in different parts of the country. You are by definition guilty of “bubble thinking”, just the same as those who live in London or other big cities who can’t grasp why some people would need a car in 2020.
If you live in rural Northumberland, you cannot get by without a car. It’s just impossible to live a normal life without one.
If you live in central London, or perhaps central Manchester, having a car is a luxury at best, a huge inconvenience at worst.
The problem on both sides of the “bubble” is not being able to recognise that circumstances differ.
Yes. And people can choose to live in Central London or can choose to live in Northumberland and if they're not happy they're capable of moving.
Nothing is set in stone.
In the short to medium term its very much set in concrete though. Whilst individually we can choose where to live, collectively we have to live where the houses already are, you cant move a million people out of London into Northumberland without causing absolute chaos.
Millions don't have to move, there's plenty of alternative transport available and I forgot buses as an option even within London too. As has been seen with the collapse in traveller numbers this year that some people are bemoaning there are alternatives available if people want to take them. The idea that people have to take the train is a fallacy - people choose to take it because its convenient, 3x the number who took it pre-privatisation, that doesn't mean it is their only option.
Think about it logically. If 3x the number of passengers are using rail now than pre-privatisation and if they are doing so because they have no alternative then what were the other two-thirds doing under nationalisation?
Your logic makes no sense and doesn't match the facts.
Im not specifically talking about trains, Im pointing out that "people can move out if they dont like it" doesnt work on a national level. Therefore policies need to be thought out to include all parts of the country including London. Those who ignore parts of the country because they dont like them or they are different areas are unhelpful, whether its post industrial towns or a capital city that are being excluded.
Yes and people in London have multiple options available other than rail. Off the top of my head they can:
1: Stay at home. 2: Walk 3: Get a bus 4: Get a train 5: Ride a bike 6: Ride a motorbike 7: Ride an e-bike 8: Drive a car 9: Get a taxi/UBER etc 10: Move
That's just off the top of my head. In recent years while Rail travel has been increasing, Bus travel has been falling. So the idea there's no interchange or alternative or choice is just absolute codswallop.
While options like UBER or ebikes didn't exist decades ago. An ebike can take a passenger between 50 to 100 miles or further depending upon the model of ebike used - why is that so unthinkable as an option in London?
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
The USA seems to be the only big wealthy nation that doesnt subsidise its public transport system much. Result - massive overuse of cars, loss of community and obesity.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
No idea. The problem with trains that Philip doesn't seem to understand is that people use them because they have no choice.
So we can make the economic case that the fares should be £14,000 because people will pay but we can equally make the moral case that half of a decent-ish salary should not be spent on commuting.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
If that's what it costs que sera, sera.
Or you could choose an alternative option.
If you would like to explain to my friends a reasonable way into Central London without using public transport, please do
I have to report that the evil Natz have driven Andra Neil into another Bosnia and Herzegovina moment during his twitter barrage, though this time he's deleted the evidence. Scottish indy certainly seems to set the old warhorse sweating and a trembling.
He's been on a tear recently, tweeting relentlessly about the Royal Navy's role in abolishing slavery. As someone pointed out, based on his output one could be forgiven for thinking our embrace of slavery in the first place was a benign and necessary step taken purely to create the opportunity to set an example by rejecting it a century or so later.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Apparently ‘tough’ I used to commute from Castle Cary to Paddington, can’t remember the season ticket cost, glad to give it up in 2008.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
Privatisation was a botch job. We can thank the EU for that.
Bullshit. At the time of privatization, all the EU required was separate accounts, let alone any organizational or ownership split, for infrastructure and services. The botched privatization was 100% due to blinkered Tory ideology that insisted on creating fake “competition” where none was needed or indeed in any way beneficial. The real competition for the railways was other forms of transport, themselves all highly subsidized, in some cases far beyond rail’s.
@Philip_Thompson your problem is that you’re in your “outside of London” bubble. I have also always driven to work, but I live in the North East, where public transport is shite and there isn’t really any other option.
You have to recognise that for 15 odd million+ people who live in the London commuter belt, rail transport is vital, and cannot be replaced simply with bicycles and buses - this is demonstrated by the carnage the TFL rail strikes cause.
Outside of London isn't a bubble, its the overwhelming majority of the country. Inside London is the bubble.
The fact is that people found alternative ways of getting about when they didn't want to use British Rail and have found alternative ways (including not getting about) this year when they wanted to do so.
Just because Rail is convenient does not make it the only option.
Course it is. You are unable to recognise that circumstances are different in different parts of the country. You are by definition guilty of “bubble thinking”, just the same as those who live in London or other big cities who can’t grasp why some people would need a car in 2020.
If you live in rural Northumberland, you cannot get by without a car. It’s just impossible to live a normal life without one.
If you live in central London, or perhaps central Manchester, having a car is a luxury at best, a huge inconvenience at worst.
The problem on both sides of the “bubble” is not being able to recognise that circumstances differ.
Yes. And people can choose to live in Central London or can choose to live in Northumberland and if they're not happy they're capable of moving.
Nothing is set in stone.
And you keep calling London a bubble, why is it any more or less of a bubble than anywhere else?
Let's be honest, you hate London because it doesn't follow your chosen political viewpoint.
I don't hate London at all! I just hate the ignorance some in the media portray that make it out like we all live in London. One example was I recall Diane Abbott, when Labour was in government, in a discussion about cars saying that cars were unnecessary and everyone should take the train. Oh great, thanks Diane! At least I'm not saying everyone should take the car as an alternative.
Do you mind if I ask how far a distance your commute is? Would it be viable on an ebike? If you're looking at thousands and thousands of pounds for a commute then an ebike costs a fraction of that, do you mind if I've asked if you have considered it?
This week the Federal Reserve signalled they are taking a more relaxed view of inflation going forward, suggesting that they are content to see the US economy run pretty hot before reversing easing measures.
Or as its otherwise known...... 'Gentlemen, start your engines'
Where's the top of the US stock market now? jeez. On fiyah...
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
Privatisation was a botch job. We can thank the EU for that.
Bullshit. At the time of privatization, all the EU required was separate accounts, let alone any organizational or ownership split, for infrastructure and services. The botched privatization was 100% due to blinkered Tory ideology that insisted on creating fake “competition” where none was needed or indeed in any way beneficial. The real competition for the railways was other forms of transport, themselves all highly subsidized, in some cases far beyond rail’s.
The EU argument is the worst I've seen. France, Spain, Italy, Northern Ireland, ROI...
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
Privatisation was a botch job. We can thank the EU for that.
And not Major's, by then wholly discredited government?
@Philip_Thompson your problem is that you’re in your “outside of London” bubble. I have also always driven to work, but I live in the North East, where public transport is shite and there isn’t really any other option.
You have to recognise that for 15 odd million+ people who live in the London commuter belt, rail transport is vital, and cannot be replaced simply with bicycles and buses - this is demonstrated by the carnage the TFL rail strikes cause.
Outside of London isn't a bubble, its the overwhelming majority of the country. Inside London is the bubble.
The fact is that people found alternative ways of getting about when they didn't want to use British Rail and have found alternative ways (including not getting about) this year when they wanted to do so.
Just because Rail is convenient does not make it the only option.
Course it is. You are unable to recognise that circumstances are different in different parts of the country. You are by definition guilty of “bubble thinking”, just the same as those who live in London or other big cities who can’t grasp why some people would need a car in 2020.
If you live in rural Northumberland, you cannot get by without a car. It’s just impossible to live a normal life without one.
If you live in central London, or perhaps central Manchester, having a car is a luxury at best, a huge inconvenience at worst.
The problem on both sides of the “bubble” is not being able to recognise that circumstances differ.
Yes. And people can choose to live in Central London or can choose to live in Northumberland and if they're not happy they're capable of moving.
Nothing is set in stone.
And you keep calling London a bubble, why is it any more or less of a bubble than anywhere else?
Let's be honest, you hate London because it doesn't follow your chosen political viewpoint.
I don't hate London at all! I just hate the ignorance some in the media portray that make it out like we all live in London. One example was I recall Diane Abbott, when Labour was in government, in a discussion about cars saying that cars were unnecessary and everyone should take the train. Oh great, thanks Diane! At least I'm not saying everyone should take the car as an alternative.
Do you mind if I ask how far a distance your commute is? Would it be viable on an ebike? If you're looking at thousands and thousands of pounds for a commute then an ebike costs a fraction of that, do you mind if I've asked if you have considered it?
The commute I referred to was the commute I used to do, not anymore.
I have to report that the evil Natz have driven Andra Neil into another Bosnia and Herzegovina moment during his twitter barrage, though this time he's deleted the evidence. Scottish indy certainly seems to set the old warhorse sweating and a trembling.
He's been on a tear recently, tweeting relentlessly about the Royal Navy's role in abolishing slavery. As someone pointed out, based on his output one could be forgiven for thinking our embrace of slavery in the first place was a benign and necessary step taken purely to create the opportunity to set an example by rejecting it a century or so later.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
The performance under public ownership or otherwise of a sector 50 years ago - an era so distant that its TV representation would classify as costume drama - is in no way a reliable guide to how it would perform today.
"This time it will be different"
Sure . . . 🙄
2020 differs greatly from 1970 in almost every area of life, social and economic. To assume that all of this palpable progress would somehow be suspended for the specific area of publicly owned rail transport, that in this unique and special case it would be like going back to a bygone era, makes no sense at all. People just trot it out - "remember British Rail" - as a knee jerk response to any proposal of public ownership because they don't like the idea of public ownership. It's not an argument, it's a tired old cliche used in place of an argument by those too lazy or lacking the wherewithal to make one. Do not be such a person. Unless you've had 5 pints with dinner - in which case bravo (!) for making any conversation at all, cliche or not.
You mean lunch not dinner but otherwise LOL.
- it was in fact dinner to my shock and sneaking admiration.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Pre-COVID I reckon they could have put ticket prices into London up by 50% and it wouldn't have made much difference in the short term (other than a massive political argument and commuters asking for a pay rise).
Most people can't drive into central London for work so you have to pay it, that's why the prices are regulated. In the longer term a 50% price rise might have had people evaluating the value of commuting into London (versus paying to live in London or working outside for less money).
Of course, post-COVID the world is a very different place and the above doesn't apply.
@Philip_Thompson your problem is that you’re in your “outside of London” bubble. I have also always driven to work, but I live in the North East, where public transport is shite and there isn’t really any other option.
You have to recognise that for 15 odd million+ people who live in the London commuter belt, rail transport is vital, and cannot be replaced simply with bicycles and buses - this is demonstrated by the carnage the TFL rail strikes cause.
Outside of London isn't a bubble, its the overwhelming majority of the country. Inside London is the bubble.
The fact is that people found alternative ways of getting about when they didn't want to use British Rail and have found alternative ways (including not getting about) this year when they wanted to do so.
Just because Rail is convenient does not make it the only option.
Course it is. You are unable to recognise that circumstances are different in different parts of the country. You are by definition guilty of “bubble thinking”, just the same as those who live in London or other big cities who can’t grasp why some people would need a car in 2020.
If you live in rural Northumberland, you cannot get by without a car. It’s just impossible to live a normal life without one.
If you live in central London, or perhaps central Manchester, having a car is a luxury at best, a huge inconvenience at worst.
The problem on both sides of the “bubble” is not being able to recognise that circumstances differ.
Yes. And people can choose to live in Central London or can choose to live in Northumberland and if they're not happy they're capable of moving.
Nothing is set in stone.
And you keep calling London a bubble, why is it any more or less of a bubble than anywhere else?
Let's be honest, you hate London because it doesn't follow your chosen political viewpoint.
I don't hate London at all! I just hate the ignorance some in the media portray that make it out like we all live in London. One example was I recall Diane Abbott, when Labour was in government, in a discussion about cars saying that cars were unnecessary and everyone should take the train. Oh great, thanks Diane! At least I'm not saying everyone should take the car as an alternative.
Do you mind if I ask how far a distance your commute is? Would it be viable on an ebike? If you're looking at thousands and thousands of pounds for a commute then an ebike costs a fraction of that, do you mind if I've asked if you have considered it?
Your attitude of "if Londoners dont like it they should move" is just as ignorant as Diane Abbott's lack of understanding of life outside London. Two wrongs dont make a right.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
That’s going to be another Monza, there are some comments that it may even be quicker and we’ll see the fastest lap ever by an F1 car. It’s short as well, less than a minute round for a 90 lap race.
The 2019 Ferrari would have liked it.
Indeed. The Bahrain second track looks like it will be about 53 seconds around in qualifying, and the race is 87 laps.
I’ve also just realised that if Lewis Hamilton can win this weekend and next (Spa and Monza), he’s in with a shout of ruining Ferrari’s garden party the following week by equalling Michael Schumacher’s all time wins record.
I have to report that the evil Natz have driven Andra Neil into another Bosnia and Herzegovina moment during his twitter barrage, though this time he's deleted the evidence. Scottish indy certainly seems to set the old warhorse sweating and a trembling.
He's been on a tear recently, tweeting relentlessly about the Royal Navy's role in abolishing slavery. As someone pointed out, based on his output one could be forgiven for thinking our embrace of slavery in the first place was a benign and necessary step taken purely to create the opportunity to set an example by rejecting it a century or so later.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
20hrs a week on a bike on top of working is not realistic for most.
@Philip_Thompson your problem is that you’re in your “outside of London” bubble. I have also always driven to work, but I live in the North East, where public transport is shite and there isn’t really any other option.
You have to recognise that for 15 odd million+ people who live in the London commuter belt, rail transport is vital, and cannot be replaced simply with bicycles and buses - this is demonstrated by the carnage the TFL rail strikes cause.
Outside of London isn't a bubble, its the overwhelming majority of the country. Inside London is the bubble.
The fact is that people found alternative ways of getting about when they didn't want to use British Rail and have found alternative ways (including not getting about) this year when they wanted to do so.
Just because Rail is convenient does not make it the only option.
Course it is. You are unable to recognise that circumstances are different in different parts of the country. You are by definition guilty of “bubble thinking”, just the same as those who live in London or other big cities who can’t grasp why some people would need a car in 2020.
If you live in rural Northumberland, you cannot get by without a car. It’s just impossible to live a normal life without one.
If you live in central London, or perhaps central Manchester, having a car is a luxury at best, a huge inconvenience at worst.
The problem on both sides of the “bubble” is not being able to recognise that circumstances differ.
Yes. And people can choose to live in Central London or can choose to live in Northumberland and if they're not happy they're capable of moving.
Nothing is set in stone.
And you keep calling London a bubble, why is it any more or less of a bubble than anywhere else?
Let's be honest, you hate London because it doesn't follow your chosen political viewpoint.
I don't hate London at all! I just hate the ignorance some in the media portray that make it out like we all live in London. One example was I recall Diane Abbott, when Labour was in government, in a discussion about cars saying that cars were unnecessary and everyone should take the train. Oh great, thanks Diane! At least I'm not saying everyone should take the car as an alternative.
Do you mind if I ask how far a distance your commute is? Would it be viable on an ebike? If you're looking at thousands and thousands of pounds for a commute then an ebike costs a fraction of that, do you mind if I've asked if you have considered it?
The commute I referred to was the commute I used to do, not anymore.
47 miles on a bike, there and back.
47 miles is well within the range of modern ebikes at a fraction of the cost of the season ticket that you quoted. I don't know how long ebikes last for but I'm assuming years - but you could buy one every 3 months and still have money left over.
Alternatives exist if you want to take them. If you don't want to, fair enough.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
It is perfectly feasible on an ebike. But my guess is the take up would be <2%.
I used to cycle approx 36 miles round trip Central London/Surrey for work several years ago and it was a complete shag. Not on an e-bike that said but an ebike doesn't keep out the rain or stop you getting stuck behind the bus on Brixton Hill.
Seriously, no one or very few people are commuting >10 miles a day on a bike.
I see the "Biden has dementia" meme has come out to play early in this thread.
I seem to remember a lot of discussion in 2016 with some people (not necessarily on here) adamant that Clinton had some sort of neurological condition that would impair her presidency. Funny how that immediately vanished on November 4th and has never been heard of again.
@Philip_Thompson your problem is that you’re in your “outside of London” bubble. I have also always driven to work, but I live in the North East, where public transport is shite and there isn’t really any other option.
You have to recognise that for 15 odd million+ people who live in the London commuter belt, rail transport is vital, and cannot be replaced simply with bicycles and buses - this is demonstrated by the carnage the TFL rail strikes cause.
Outside of London isn't a bubble, its the overwhelming majority of the country. Inside London is the bubble.
The fact is that people found alternative ways of getting about when they didn't want to use British Rail and have found alternative ways (including not getting about) this year when they wanted to do so.
Just because Rail is convenient does not make it the only option.
Course it is. You are unable to recognise that circumstances are different in different parts of the country. You are by definition guilty of “bubble thinking”, just the same as those who live in London or other big cities who can’t grasp why some people would need a car in 2020.
If you live in rural Northumberland, you cannot get by without a car. It’s just impossible to live a normal life without one.
If you live in central London, or perhaps central Manchester, having a car is a luxury at best, a huge inconvenience at worst.
The problem on both sides of the “bubble” is not being able to recognise that circumstances differ.
Yes. And people can choose to live in Central London or can choose to live in Northumberland and if they're not happy they're capable of moving.
Nothing is set in stone.
And you keep calling London a bubble, why is it any more or less of a bubble than anywhere else?
Let's be honest, you hate London because it doesn't follow your chosen political viewpoint.
I don't hate London at all! I just hate the ignorance some in the media portray that make it out like we all live in London. One example was I recall Diane Abbott, when Labour was in government, in a discussion about cars saying that cars were unnecessary and everyone should take the train. Oh great, thanks Diane! At least I'm not saying everyone should take the car as an alternative.
Do you mind if I ask how far a distance your commute is? Would it be viable on an ebike? If you're looking at thousands and thousands of pounds for a commute then an ebike costs a fraction of that, do you mind if I've asked if you have considered it?
The commute I referred to was the commute I used to do, not anymore.
47 miles on a bike, there and back.
47 miles is well within the range of modern ebikes at a fraction of the cost of the season ticket that you quoted. I don't know how long ebikes last for but I'm assuming years - but you could buy one every 3 months and still have money left over.
Alternatives exist if you want to take them. If you don't want to, fair enough.
You can't seriously sit there with a straight face and suggest 47 miles one way and then 47 miles back, every day, 5 days a week, is an actual option compared to taking a train.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
20hrs a week on a bike on top of working is not realistic for most.
Why not? If the commute was already taking that long previously what is the problem? And its a fraction of the cost and healthier.
@Philip_Thompson your problem is that you’re in your “outside of London” bubble. I have also always driven to work, but I live in the North East, where public transport is shite and there isn’t really any other option.
You have to recognise that for 15 odd million+ people who live in the London commuter belt, rail transport is vital, and cannot be replaced simply with bicycles and buses - this is demonstrated by the carnage the TFL rail strikes cause.
Outside of London isn't a bubble, its the overwhelming majority of the country. Inside London is the bubble.
The fact is that people found alternative ways of getting about when they didn't want to use British Rail and have found alternative ways (including not getting about) this year when they wanted to do so.
Just because Rail is convenient does not make it the only option.
Course it is. You are unable to recognise that circumstances are different in different parts of the country. You are by definition guilty of “bubble thinking”, just the same as those who live in London or other big cities who can’t grasp why some people would need a car in 2020.
If you live in rural Northumberland, you cannot get by without a car. It’s just impossible to live a normal life without one.
If you live in central London, or perhaps central Manchester, having a car is a luxury at best, a huge inconvenience at worst.
The problem on both sides of the “bubble” is not being able to recognise that circumstances differ.
Yes. And people can choose to live in Central London or can choose to live in Northumberland and if they're not happy they're capable of moving.
Nothing is set in stone.
And you keep calling London a bubble, why is it any more or less of a bubble than anywhere else?
Let's be honest, you hate London because it doesn't follow your chosen political viewpoint.
I don't hate London at all! I just hate the ignorance some in the media portray that make it out like we all live in London. One example was I recall Diane Abbott, when Labour was in government, in a discussion about cars saying that cars were unnecessary and everyone should take the train. Oh great, thanks Diane! At least I'm not saying everyone should take the car as an alternative.
Do you mind if I ask how far a distance your commute is? Would it be viable on an ebike? If you're looking at thousands and thousands of pounds for a commute then an ebike costs a fraction of that, do you mind if I've asked if you have considered it?
The commute I referred to was the commute I used to do, not anymore.
47 miles on a bike, there and back.
47 miles is well within the range of modern ebikes at a fraction of the cost of the season ticket that you quoted. I don't know how long ebikes last for but I'm assuming years - but you could buy one every 3 months and still have money left over.
Alternatives exist if you want to take them. If you don't want to, fair enough.
You can't seriously sit there with a straight face and suggest 47 miles one way and then 47 miles back, every day, 5 days a week, is an actual option compared to taking a train.
Its an option.
So is taking a car, or a bus, or a train, or a taxi or moving, or working from home, or anything else. They're all options. They're all choices. That's what life is: a series of choices for people to make. There are no right or wrong choices.
@Philip_Thompson your problem is that you’re in your “outside of London” bubble. I have also always driven to work, but I live in the North East, where public transport is shite and there isn’t really any other option.
You have to recognise that for 15 odd million+ people who live in the London commuter belt, rail transport is vital, and cannot be replaced simply with bicycles and buses - this is demonstrated by the carnage the TFL rail strikes cause.
Outside of London isn't a bubble, its the overwhelming majority of the country. Inside London is the bubble.
The fact is that people found alternative ways of getting about when they didn't want to use British Rail and have found alternative ways (including not getting about) this year when they wanted to do so.
Just because Rail is convenient does not make it the only option.
Course it is. You are unable to recognise that circumstances are different in different parts of the country. You are by definition guilty of “bubble thinking”, just the same as those who live in London or other big cities who can’t grasp why some people would need a car in 2020.
If you live in rural Northumberland, you cannot get by without a car. It’s just impossible to live a normal life without one.
If you live in central London, or perhaps central Manchester, having a car is a luxury at best, a huge inconvenience at worst.
The problem on both sides of the “bubble” is not being able to recognise that circumstances differ.
Yes. And people can choose to live in Central London or can choose to live in Northumberland and if they're not happy they're capable of moving.
Nothing is set in stone.
And you keep calling London a bubble, why is it any more or less of a bubble than anywhere else?
Let's be honest, you hate London because it doesn't follow your chosen political viewpoint.
I don't hate London at all! I just hate the ignorance some in the media portray that make it out like we all live in London. One example was I recall Diane Abbott, when Labour was in government, in a discussion about cars saying that cars were unnecessary and everyone should take the train. Oh great, thanks Diane! At least I'm not saying everyone should take the car as an alternative.
Do you mind if I ask how far a distance your commute is? Would it be viable on an ebike? If you're looking at thousands and thousands of pounds for a commute then an ebike costs a fraction of that, do you mind if I've asked if you have considered it?
The commute I referred to was the commute I used to do, not anymore.
47 miles on a bike, there and back.
47 miles is well within the range of modern ebikes at a fraction of the cost of the season ticket that you quoted. I don't know how long ebikes last for but I'm assuming years - but you could buy one every 3 months and still have money left over.
Alternatives exist if you want to take them. If you don't want to, fair enough.
You can't seriously sit there with a straight face and suggest 47 miles one way and then 47 miles back, every day, 5 days a week, is an actual option compared to taking a train.
Its an option.
So is taking a car, or a bus, or a train, or a taxi or moving, or working from home, or anything else. They're all options. They're all choices. That's what life is: a series of choices for people to make. There are no right or wrong choices.
I have to report that the evil Natz have driven Andra Neil into another Bosnia and Herzegovina moment during his twitter barrage, though this time he's deleted the evidence. Scottish indy certainly seems to set the old warhorse sweating and a trembling.
He's been on a tear recently, tweeting relentlessly about the Royal Navy's role in abolishing slavery. As someone pointed out, based on his output one could be forgiven for thinking our embrace of slavery in the first place was a benign and necessary step taken purely to create the opportunity to set an example by rejecting it a century or so later.
Absolutely, and Brillo deservedly got roasted for it. Also hilarious that Andra 'Sweden uses the Euro' Neil goes on about it being 'too late to delete your tweet'.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
It is perfectly feasible on an ebike. But my guess is the take up would be <2%.
I used to cycle approx 36 miles round trip Central London/Surrey for work several years ago and it was a complete shag. Not on an e-bike that said but an ebike doesn't keep out the rain or stop you getting stuck behind the bus on Brixton Hill.
Seriously, no one or very few people are commuting >10 miles a day.
Yes there's a reason I said ebike not pedalbike.
It is a choice - and it is a choice that costs a fraction of the £7,000 or £14,000 that was quoted previously.
I will say this for Philip, he sticks religiously to his ideology even when it's totally nuts. I am crying my eyes out with laughter here, thanks Philip
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
20hrs a week on a bike on top of working is not realistic for most.
Why not? If the commute was already taking that long previously what is the problem? And its a fraction of the cost and healthier.
This is a bizarre conversation, but even if you convinced Guildfords 10k or whatever commuters to cycle 20 hours plus a week in weather from 35 degree heat to minus 10 in the winter, the roads wouldnt cope, and car traffic would have to be stopped. Once all the other towns did the same, by the time you get into London, with a million plus bikes arriving, the whole road network in zones 1 and 2 would have to shut down.
I will say this for Philip, he sticks religiously to his ideology even when it's totally nuts. I am crying my eyes out with laughter here, thanks Philip
What I'm saying is a matter of fact. There are alternatives to trains. The fact that train passenger volumes have changed by an order of 300% proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. They could permanently shrink by 66% and still be just back to where they were relatively recently.
And alternatives like ebikes didn't exist then either. If you go to other cities like Amsterdam you will see commuting by bike as a much more frequent option - it is not a joke if you live in a city to consider that as an option, especially with modern technology giving electronically assisted alternatives that cost a tiny percentage of your season ticket costs.
The key issue with any nationalised service like BR (or British Leyland, or so on) is that as soon as it is owned and run by the Government, it is in direct contention for public funds with "schools'n'hospitals."
Every penny spent on anything to do with that nationalised service (unless you've got some sort of contractual layers or regulated hands-off in some way) is a penny that could otherwise have gone on sick people and children. It's a bit facile, but it's still true, unfortunately. That's why BR was starved of money - not by deliberate malicious intent on behalf of governments of all stripes, but because making travellers a bit more comfortable consistently fell behind further spending on the NHS, or education, or defence, or law and order.
It also precludes any private investment unless you get rather imaginative and minimises any innovation (why innovate? You won't get any reward from it, and you could get in trouble for it).
There are areas of public spending and services where this isn't a problem. There are areas where it is. Other countries do things differently (Denmark, for example, which isn't usually seen as a hard-right neoliberal paradise) has a privatised ambulance service).
Ironically, running another country's services does insulate you from that problem.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
20hrs a week on a bike on top of working is not realistic for most.
Why not? If the commute was already taking that long previously what is the problem? And its a fraction of the cost and healthier.
People simply won't do it is why not. You can price them out of the trains but as I said there are significant negative externalities from driving (!) people onto the roads and not, I hasten to add, on ebikes.
So why not ebikes? Have you done much cycling on A-roads? It's pretty hectic and dangerous.
These days (pre-lockdown) I cycled 10 miles a day round trip every day for my commute (on a Boris bike) through Central London. I showered when I got to work, had my gym kit at work for the gym, and kept a decent wardrobe at work also. On a lovely sunny Autumn day it was lovely but often it pisses down in London and in the winter it can be pretty miserable.
I can assure you ebike or not, shifting anything more than 1-2% onto bikes from trains is simply not going to work.
You might as well say why don't people pogo 10 miles into work.
Just wondering Philip, do you think we should privatise the roads?
I don't think the roads should be subsidised. I don't think the Government should spend more on roads than it raises in fuel duty, vehicle excise duties etc
Just wondering Philip, do you think we should privatise the roads?
I don't think the roads should be subsidised. I don't think the Government should spend more on roads than it raises in fuel duty, vehicle excise duties etc
So you think the roads should be privatised, yes or no?
That’s going to be another Monza, there are some comments that it may even be quicker and we’ll see the fastest lap ever by an F1 car. It’s short as well, less than a minute round for a 90 lap race.
Either the cars are getting astonishingly quick, or that’s a really, really short lap (as in, stick it on full lock and leave it).
Just wondering Philip, do you think we should privatise the roads?
I don't think the roads should be subsidised. I don't think the Government should spend more on roads than it raises in fuel duty, vehicle excise duties etc
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
Just wondering Philip, do you think we should privatise the roads?
I don't think the roads should be subsidised. I don't think the Government should spend more on roads than it raises in fuel duty, vehicle excise duties etc
So you think the roads should be privatised, yes or no?
I have found an infallible cure for those who think roads should be privatised is one trip on the M6 Toll.
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
No you just need to believe me, there are options, you just need to believe in them.
This reminds me of that scene from IT Crowd.
I wanted a helicopter, so I dreamed really hard and then I bought myself one
Actually Philip's graph if you look closely actually shows numbers increasing prior to privatisation.
I am going to make a guess and say if BR was still around we would have seen similar increases. Population growth is the cause.
You'd need a per capita graph to check that, although I suspect the increase at the end is much faster than population growth (the population of the UK hasn't doubled since 1995). There's quite a few plots on this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail. There's one showing rail's share of total travel, with the inflection point right around the time of privatisation.
That also raises the point that, at the same time, we had the Major ministry forced by Swampy to abandon its road-building programme.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
20hrs a week on a bike on top of working is not realistic for most.
Why not? If the commute was already taking that long previously what is the problem? And its a fraction of the cost and healthier.
People simply won't do it is why not. You can price them out of the trains but as I said there are significant negative externalities from driving (!) people onto the roads and not, I hasten to add, on ebikes.
So why not ebikes? Have you done much cycling on A-roads? It's pretty hectic and dangerous.
These days (pre-lockdown) I cycled 10 miles a day round trip every day for my commute (on a Boris bike) through Central London. I showered when I got to work, had my gym kit at work for the gym, and kept a decent wardrobe at work also. On a lovely sunny Autumn day it was lovely but often it pisses down in London and in the winter it can be pretty miserable.
I can assure you ebike or not, shifting anything more than 1-2% onto bikes from trains is simply not going to work.
You might as well say why don't people pogo 10 miles into work.
People will do it.
People have found alternatives to rail in the past - passenger volumes in the past were 1/3rd of what they were pre-COVID. People have found alternatives in the present - passenger volumes in the present are a fraction of what they were pre-COVID.
You can say people won't but they will. People will find a way. If rail is easier, cheaper, more convenient then its passenger numbers will go up. If its more expensive, less pleasant, less convenient then they will go down. Alternatives exist.
I don't believe the average person in Brent spends 72% of their income on rent.
Perhaps it is average rent/ average income which may be disproportionately skewed if the former is mean and latter is median, which is how those figures are usually reported.
Just wondering Philip, do you think we should privatise the roads?
I don't think the roads should be subsidised. I don't think the Government should spend more on roads than it raises in fuel duty, vehicle excise duties etc
So you think the roads should be privatised, yes or no?
I have found an infallible cure for those who think roads should be privatised is one trip on the M6 Toll.
To be honest, I'm not entirely against the concept of toll roads, I just don't see why the Government can't do that
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
20hrs a week on a bike on top of working is not realistic for most.
Why not? If the commute was already taking that long previously what is the problem? And its a fraction of the cost and healthier.
People simply won't do it is why not. You can price them out of the trains but as I said there are significant negative externalities from driving (!) people onto the roads and not, I hasten to add, on ebikes.
So why not ebikes? Have you done much cycling on A-roads? It's pretty hectic and dangerous.
These days (pre-lockdown) I cycled 10 miles a day round trip every day for my commute (on a Boris bike) through Central London. I showered when I got to work, had my gym kit at work for the gym, and kept a decent wardrobe at work also. On a lovely sunny Autumn day it was lovely but often it pisses down in London and in the winter it can be pretty miserable.
I can assure you ebike or not, shifting anything more than 1-2% onto bikes from trains is simply not going to work.
You might as well say why don't people pogo 10 miles into work.
People will do it.
People have found alternatives to rail in the past - passenger volumes in the past were 1/3rd of what they were pre-COVID. People have found alternatives in the present - passenger volumes in the present are a fraction of what they were pre-COVID.
You can say people won't but they will. People will find a way. If rail is easier, cheaper, more convenient then its passenger numbers will go up. If its more expensive, less pleasant, less convenient then they will go down. Alternatives exist.
No, no one is going to do 40 miles to and from somewhere on an e-bike. Even at an average speed to 30mph that's ~80-90 mins door to door. The idea is ridiculous.
Just wondering Philip, do you think we should privatise the roads?
I don't think the roads should be subsidised. I don't think the Government should spend more on roads than it raises in fuel duty, vehicle excise duties etc
I am paying around £500 a year for five years to tax a car that was listed (not bought for) new at £40,000 plus.
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
But how many people make a 40 mile commute?
According to a quick Google search the average London commute is 13 miles, not 40 miles. Entirely feasible on an ebike which costs the fraction of a season ticket - and that's just one of many viable alternatives to rail.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
Privatisation was a botch job. We can thank the EU for that.
Bullshit. At the time of privatization, all the EU required was separate accounts, let alone any organizational or ownership split, for infrastructure and services. The botched privatization was 100% due to blinkered Tory ideology that insisted on creating fake “competition” where none was needed or indeed in any way beneficial. The real competition for the railways was other forms of transport, themselves all highly subsidized, in some cases far beyond rail’s.
In an extremely similar way to the BBC internal market, which has undermined BBC TV's distinctiveness and ambition ever since, and once again related to the blueprints of the elite management consultancies, who played a key role in the background of Conservative policymaking from the late eighties onward.
I don't believe the average person in Brent spends 72% of their income on rent.
Perhaps it is average rent/ average income which may be disproportionately skewed if the former is mean and latter is median, which is how those figures are usually reported.
The truth is scary enough though.
Taking a mean, dividing it by a median and reporting this as the average proportion a person spends on rent is either statistical gross negligence or outright fraud.
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
But how many people make a 40 mile commute?
According to a quick Google search the average London commute is 13 miles, not 40 miles. Entirely feasible on an ebike which costs the fraction of a season ticket - and that's just one of many viable alternatives to rail.
You suggested I get an E-bike to get around rail commuting, or are you now accepting that's not an option.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
20hrs a week on a bike on top of working is not realistic for most.
Why not? If the commute was already taking that long previously what is the problem? And its a fraction of the cost and healthier.
People simply won't do it is why not. You can price them out of the trains but as I said there are significant negative externalities from driving (!) people onto the roads and not, I hasten to add, on ebikes.
So why not ebikes? Have you done much cycling on A-roads? It's pretty hectic and dangerous.
These days (pre-lockdown) I cycled 10 miles a day round trip every day for my commute (on a Boris bike) through Central London. I showered when I got to work, had my gym kit at work for the gym, and kept a decent wardrobe at work also. On a lovely sunny Autumn day it was lovely but often it pisses down in London and in the winter it can be pretty miserable.
I can assure you ebike or not, shifting anything more than 1-2% onto bikes from trains is simply not going to work.
You might as well say why don't people pogo 10 miles into work.
People will do it.
People have found alternatives to rail in the past - passenger volumes in the past were 1/3rd of what they were pre-COVID. People have found alternatives in the present - passenger volumes in the present are a fraction of what they were pre-COVID.
You can say people won't but they will. People will find a way. If rail is easier, cheaper, more convenient then its passenger numbers will go up. If its more expensive, less pleasant, less convenient then they will go down. Alternatives exist.
You are maintaining that people will commute 30-40 miles daily on an ebike.
Just wondering Philip, do you think we should privatise the roads?
I don't think the roads should be subsidised. I don't think the Government should spend more on roads than it raises in fuel duty, vehicle excise duties etc
"Don't think the roads should be subsidised."
Say WHAT?
The Government makes a profit from drivers, they're not subsidised already.
Comments
Let's be honest, you hate London because it doesn't follow your chosen political viewpoint.
1: Stay at home.
2: Walk
3: Get a bus
4: Get a train
5: Ride a bike
6: Ride a motorbike
7: Ride an e-bike
8: Drive a car
9: Get a taxi/UBER etc
10: Move
That's just off the top of my head. In recent years while Rail travel has been increasing, Bus travel has been falling. So the idea there's no interchange or alternative or choice is just absolute codswallop.
While options like UBER or ebikes didn't exist decades ago. An ebike can take a passenger between 50 to 100 miles or further depending upon the model of ebike used - why is that so unthinkable as an option in London?
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1299325235498487808?s=20
Or you could choose an alternative option.
So we can make the economic case that the fares should be £14,000 because people will pay but we can equally make the moral case that half of a decent-ish salary should not be spent on commuting.
#landofhog
Paddington, can’t remember the season ticket cost, glad to give it up in 2008.
Do you mind if I ask how far a distance your commute is? Would it be viable on an ebike? If you're looking at thousands and thousands of pounds for a commute then an ebike costs a fraction of that, do you mind if I've asked if you have considered it?
Or as its otherwise known...... 'Gentlemen, start your engines'
Where's the top of the US stock market now? jeez. On fiyah...
More LD target seats now in London and the SE than the rest of England combined with only 1 in Wales and 1 in Scotland
47 miles on a bike, there and back.
https://twitter.com/OFalafel/status/1298593474250514433?s=20
Most people can't drive into central London for work so you have to pay it, that's why the prices are regulated. In the longer term a 50% price rise might have had people evaluating the value of commuting into London (versus paying to live in London or working outside for less money).
Of course, post-COVID the world is a very different place and the above doesn't apply.
Relatively comfortable with my early each way bet on Bottas, although the apparent narrow gap to Verstappen is mildly surprising.
I’ve also just realised that if Lewis Hamilton can win this weekend and next (Spa and Monza), he’s in with a shout of ruining Ferrari’s garden party the following week by equalling Michael Schumacher’s all time wins record.
https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/1299299761149931520?s=20
Failed in London, settled in the sticks.
Alternatives exist if you want to take them. If you don't want to, fair enough.
I used to cycle approx 36 miles round trip Central London/Surrey for work several years ago and it was a complete shag. Not on an e-bike that said but an ebike doesn't keep out the rain or stop you getting stuck behind the bus on Brixton Hill.
Seriously, no one or very few people are commuting >10 miles a day on a bike.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/projection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwcploTZbKA
So is taking a car, or a bus, or a train, or a taxi or moving, or working from home, or anything else. They're all options. They're all choices. That's what life is: a series of choices for people to make. There are no right or wrong choices.
It is a choice - and it is a choice that costs a fraction of the £7,000 or £14,000 that was quoted previously.
And alternatives like ebikes didn't exist then either. If you go to other cities like Amsterdam you will see commuting by bike as a much more frequent option - it is not a joke if you live in a city to consider that as an option, especially with modern technology giving electronically assisted alternatives that cost a tiny percentage of your season ticket costs.
Every penny spent on anything to do with that nationalised service (unless you've got some sort of contractual layers or regulated hands-off in some way) is a penny that could otherwise have gone on sick people and children. It's a bit facile, but it's still true, unfortunately. That's why BR was starved of money - not by deliberate malicious intent on behalf of governments of all stripes, but because making travellers a bit more comfortable consistently fell behind further spending on the NHS, or education, or defence, or law and order.
It also precludes any private investment unless you get rather imaginative and minimises any innovation (why innovate? You won't get any reward from it, and you could get in trouble for it).
There are areas of public spending and services where this isn't a problem. There are areas where it is. Other countries do things differently (Denmark, for example, which isn't usually seen as a hard-right neoliberal paradise) has a privatised ambulance service).
Ironically, running another country's services does insulate you from that problem.
So why not ebikes? Have you done much cycling on A-roads? It's pretty hectic and dangerous.
These days (pre-lockdown) I cycled 10 miles a day round trip every day for my commute (on a Boris bike) through Central London. I showered when I got to work, had my gym kit at work for the gym, and kept a decent wardrobe at work also. On a lovely sunny Autumn day it was lovely but often it pisses down in London and in the winter it can be pretty miserable.
I can assure you ebike or not, shifting anything more than 1-2% onto bikes from trains is simply not going to work.
You might as well say why don't people pogo 10 miles into work.
Say WHAT?
This reminds me of that scene from IT Crowd.
I wanted a helicopter, so I dreamed really hard and then I bought myself one
People have found alternatives to rail in the past - passenger volumes in the past were 1/3rd of what they were pre-COVID.
People have found alternatives in the present - passenger volumes in the present are a fraction of what they were pre-COVID.
You can say people won't but they will. People will find a way. If rail is easier, cheaper, more convenient then its passenger numbers will go up. If its more expensive, less pleasant, less convenient then they will go down. Alternatives exist.
https://twitter.com/BizforScotland/status/1299270945031499776?s=20
Cue wails of 'But it's Business for Scotland' and libelous slurs directed at Panelbase.
Perhaps it is average rent/ average income which may be disproportionately skewed if the former is mean and latter is median, which is how those figures are usually reported.
The truth is scary enough though.
Telegraph on the money as usual (sarcasm)
Who is subsidising the roads?
Biden lead of +15.
Seems a bit toppy.
According to a quick Google search the average London commute is 13 miles, not 40 miles. Entirely feasible on an ebike which costs the fraction of a season ticket - and that's just one of many viable alternatives to rail.
I've just had a look at helicopters
Pushing for PB Hall of Fame theory here, Philip.