Current Affairs The Labour Party

[COYBL25]

Pretty sure middle management might not have noticed.

If the public transport works, more people us it. Less people on rosds. Roads less congested for rest of population

One of the biggest reasons aren’t using trains is the sheer cost of using them.

A for instance.

My lad went to the Boardmasters festival in Newquay this year.

It was half the price to fly from Manchester to Newquay, than getting the train.

The plane journey took 50 mins, the train journey would’ve taken the best part of 8hrs.

Where is the incentive to use the train ?

 

[Kurt.]

One of the biggest reasons aren’t using trains is the sheer cost of using them.

A for instance.

My lad went to the Boardmasters festival in Newquay this year.

It was half the price to fly from Manchester to Newquay, than getting the train.

The plane journey took 50 mins, the train journey would’ve taken the best part of 8hrs.

Where is the incentive to use the train ?

8 hour sesh is the best I can come up with mate

 

[twoblue]

One of the biggest reasons aren’t using trains is the sheer cost of using them.

A for instance.

My lad went to the Boardmasters festival in Newquay this year.

It was half the price to fly from Manchester to Newquay, than getting the train.

The plane journey took 50 mins, the train journey would’ve taken the best part of 8hrs.

Where is the incentive to use the train ?

well it costs more cos they need to make profit.
At the end of the day, they should be run for the public useage. Market forces don’t apply for this because the competition doesn’t exist given the limited tracks.
I’m all for employee bonuses for achieving standards, hitting kpi’s etc, but do we really need shareholders demanding money paid to them for rail services at the expense of investment

 

[Bruce Wayne]

For me, excising a layer of private companies who are required to generate profits for their shareholders is inherently a good thing when discussing public services such as transportation, doubly so if they rake in public money via subsidies. "Socialise the losses, privatise the profits" is the ultimate Tory mantra that pumps the cash ever upwards away from people who need it, towards the yachts of people who don't.

How it will affect the day to day running of those services is more down to the people in place. Things might not actually improve, but there won't be the double whammy slap in the face of seeing people getting rich off those failures.

I do wonder how much of that is down to how things are regulated though, and it'll probably be those people in charge of the regulators who will now be in charge of the railway. It's a bit like the water companies. The network needs a huge upgrade in the sewage system in order to prevent waste being pumped into rivers, but is there really any more sign that the government is willing or able to make those long-term investments than the water companies are? I mean we've literally just had HS2 scrapped because it was being managed so badly. The idea that state is automatically good and private automatically bad seems pretty reductionist to me. As you say, the day-to-day is much more about the people running it, but so is the long-term.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

One of the biggest reasons aren’t using trains is the sheer cost of using them.

A for instance.

My lad went to the Boardmasters festival in Newquay this year.

It was half the price to fly from Manchester to Newquay, than getting the train.

The plane journey took 50 mins, the train journey would’ve taken the best part of 8hrs.

Where is the incentive to use the train ?

Is it realistic to expect things to change under public ownership? People keep talking about the need to make a profit etc., ignoring the fact that it's the state regulator that determines what is acceptable as a profit and also the level of subsidy given to the system. In essence, the state already determines the business model. I'm not imagining we're going to magically get £5 tickets and 50p cups of tea, especially when the unions are quite good at extracting very good wages for staff and things like automation are rejected at every step.

 

[Xizor]

is there really any more sign that the government is willing or able to make those long-term investments than the water companies are?

It depends on who makes up the government, because either way it's people making the decisions. But when it comes to public vs private ownership, the question flips between:

"Do we put £5b into water infrastructure or put £1b in and invest the rest of the money elsewhere?"

Or

"Do we put £5b into water infrastructure or put £1b in, keep the rest as profit and boost shareholder dividends?"

Short of naked corruption, ministers aren't pocketing the remainder of the public cash that isnt invested. Giving private entities a personal financial incentive to underinvest in public services is a disaster, especially if the problems only emerge long term (pipes leaking sewage into rivers) and the ones raking in the cash have long since fled to tax haven retirement villas.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It depends on who makes up the government, because either way it's people making the decisions. But when it comes to public vs private ownership, the question flips between:

"Do we put £5b into water infrastructure or put £1b in and invest the rest of the money elsewhere?"

Or

"Do we put £5b into water infrastructure or put £1b in, keep the rest as profit and boost shareholder dividends?"

Short of naked corruption, ministers aren't pocketing the remainder of the public cash that isnt invested. Giving private entities a personal financial incentive to underinvest in public services is a disaster, especially if the problems only emerge long term (pipes leaking sewage into rivers) and the ones raking in the cash have long since fled to tax haven retirement villas.

One could also argue that the private companies have an incentive to reduce costs and run an efficient ship because they want the profit at the end, whereas government entities don't have that incentive as they can simply go to the exchequer for more money. That is equally reductionist, but we see with something like the NHS that it's neither run well for the present or in receipt of the investment it requires for the future. That can't be blamed on private swines, so to expect the trains or the water companies (or energy I suppose) to be automatically better just because the "good people" (unless you're Dave, Pete, or Joe) are running them seems naive.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

All that needs to be done now is introduce a public owned train supplier, and break current cartel of Rolling Stock companies. This will be logical conclusion now much of responsibility sits back with government and transport department.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

One could also argue that the private companies have an incentive to reduce costs and run an efficient ship because they want the profit at the end, whereas government entities don't have that incentive as they can simply go to the exchequer for more money. That is equally reductionist, but we see with something like the NHS that it's neither run well for the present or in receipt of the investment it requires for the future. That can't be blamed on private swines, so to expect the trains or the water companies (or energy I suppose) to be automatically better just because the "good people" (unless you're Dave, Pete, or Joe) are running them seems naive.

Pete wants public ownership of something? Not very consistent with his 'the public sector/civil service are crap" rhetoric for the last couple of years.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Funny like given the day that Grenfell report is released which highlights Deregulation Privatisation Greed over peoples welfare, that some are aching for more "free market"... Ideological wonky eyed loons.

 

[davek]

Starmer at PMQs - got a pounding from a pip squeak like Sunak.

He was that rattled at one point he even called Sunak "Prime Minister".

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Starmer at PMQs - got a pounding from a pip squeak like Sunak.

He was that rattled at one point he even called Sunak "Prime Minister".

Thought he did very well with response with Grenfell report, apologised with "sorry" for the role of the state in allowing profit over people's safety, and states its his own responsibility to now to improve building regulation and its on him, certainly not a lefty...

 

[Xizor]

Masterful PMQs performance from #TopTierKeir, slapped the Tories down and made it look easy.

Having a pop at Sunak for suggesting they break international law, amazing stuff.

Of course the day is more about Grenfell so let's not get carried away grinding our political axes.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Pete wants public ownership of something? Not very consistent with his 'the public sector/civil service are crap" rhetoric for the last couple of years.

Not that I'm aware of. More that he doesn't believe the government are "good people" just because they're the (Labour) government.

 

[peteblue]

Pete wants public ownership of something? Not very consistent with his 'the public sector/civil service are crap" rhetoric for the last couple of years.

No, I assumed Bruce made an error or was thinking of something else…sorry just seen the above….