PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Corbyn Trains
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Transport
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 4:42 pm    Post subject: Corbyn Trains Reply with quote

An integrated publicly owned railway network? What a splendid notion.
http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/jeremy_for_public_railways
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 1970

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aka "Bring back British Rail."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 8638
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johnhemming2 wrote:
aka "Bring back British Rail."


Otherwise stated as: "parasitical shareholders go f*** yourselves."

Yes please.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 1970

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UndercoverElephant wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:
aka "Bring back British Rail."


Otherwise stated as: "parasitical shareholders go f*** yourselves."

Yes please.

In other words you are more concerned about whether shareholders make any profit or not than the quality or price of the service to the passengers.

That is a rational position to take, but as a regular passenger I am more concerned about the quality and price of the service.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 8638
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johnhemming2 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:
aka "Bring back British Rail."


Otherwise stated as: "parasitical shareholders go f*** yourselves."

Yes please.

In other words you are more concerned about whether shareholders make any profit or not than the quality or price of the service to the passengers.

That is a rational position to take, but as a regular passenger I am more concerned about the quality and price of the service.


Corbyn's argument is that "natural monopolies" should not be in private hands. I agree with it.

I also see no reason why the quality and price or the service should be lower in private hands. Perhaps a better example are the energy companies. Does private ownership lead to a better deal for the consumer? Anyone who thinks so is bonkers, IMO. Those companies act in the best interests of their shareholders. The consumers are ripped off as efficiently as possible, by all of them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 1970

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Perhaps a better example are the energy companies. Does private ownership lead to a better deal for the consumer? Anyone who thinks so is bonkers, IMO.

Well. Let us take this statement. Energy is a pretty definable commodity.

The question, therefore, is what UK consumers pay compared for example to those across the rest of Europe.

You are welcome to have an opinion, but do you have any facts to justify your case implicitly that UK consumers pay more than consumers across the EU.

I can do a bit of research myself, but I would be interested in your answers to this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johnhemming2 wrote:
aka "Bring back British Rail."

No, you are again making the error that we would be going back to something that happened in the past. n That's not the way in which time's arrow works. The planned public ownership of the railways does not involve a repetition of of what does not work well.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 1970

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Corbyn's argument is that "natural monopolies" should not be in private hands. I agree with it.

The error in this is to assume that politicians are so much better at managing services that they can produce a better return on capital than private sector managers.

There does need to be a form of competition. For example as far as buses are concerned I would like to have sector tendering. However, my personal view having been an elected official for 25 years from 1990-2015 is that politicians are not that good at managing things. I have been a private sector manager since 1983 and continue to be one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 1970

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
The planned public ownership of the railways does not involve a repetition of of what does not work well.

What is the difference?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 8638
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johnhemming2 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Corbyn's argument is that "natural monopolies" should not be in private hands. I agree with it.

The error in this is to assume that politicians are so much better at managing services that they can produce a better return on capital than private sector managers.


Nope. That is not my assumption. The railways shouldn't be run by politicians. They should be run by people who know how to run railways, and the assumption is that people who know how to run railways can run them just as efficiently without parasitical shareholders being part of the equation as they can with the parasites in place.

Please explain to me how the parasites can possibly help matters.

Quote:

There does need to be a form of competition.


Why?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 8638
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johnhemming2 wrote:
biffvernon wrote:
The planned public ownership of the railways does not involve a repetition of of what does not work well.

What is the difference?


2015 is not 1975?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 1970

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Please explain to me how the parasites can possibly help matters.
Quote:

There does need to be a form of competition.


Why?

In the end someone has to control things. There are lots of ways of doing this. Private organisations are controlled by the owners limited by the law. Public organisations are in the end controlled by elected representativesl.

If you have private owners there needs to be some form of competition to avoid them abusing monopoly control. That is "why".

Historically state managed bodies have had much higher costs than privately managed bodies.

That is the merit of private sector managment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 8638
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johnhemming2 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Please explain to me how the parasites can possibly help matters.
Quote:

There does need to be a form of competition.


Why?

In the end someone has to control things. There are lots of ways of doing this. Private organisations are controlled by the owners limited by the law. Public organisations are in the end controlled by elected representatives.


Well, only in the sense that elected representatives have responsibility for appointing the people at the very top of the public organisations. That is not the same thing as "politicians running railways". Rather obviously, railways should be run by people who understand how railways should be run, which isn't likely to be politicians. The job of the politicians is to appoint such people. But politicians, in office, do that all the time, don't they?

Quote:

If you have private owners there needs to be some form of competition to avoid them abusing monopoly control. That is "why".


Firstly, why would a publicly owned railways "abuse monopoly control"? Abuse it in what sense? "Monopoly abuse" is something that exclusively happens when the monopoly is in private hands. If it is publicly owned, there is no point in abusing the monopoly.

Secondly, as the example of the energy companies shows all too clearly, private ownership is no obstacle to the sort of abuse associated with private monopolies. There is no real competition in the energy market, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions by numerous people of varied political persuasion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5666
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johnhemming2 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Please explain to me how the parasites can possibly help matters.
Quote:

There does need to be a form of competition.


Why?

In the end someone has to control things. There are lots of ways of doing this. Private organisations are controlled by the owners limited by the law. Public organisations are in the end controlled by elected representativesl.

If you have private owners there needs to be some form of competition to avoid them abusing monopoly control. That is "why".

Historically state managed bodies have had much higher costs than privately managed bodies.

That is the merit of private sector managment.
Evidence for this vis a vis the railways?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Catweazle



Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Posts: 2189
Location: Little England, over the hills

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that nationalisation of the railways ( and other industries ) is falling into a trap set long ago.

When they were sold off, and systematically raped, there was always the understanding that once they were totally screwed then a naive government would nationalise them and cop the debts and then the blame when they collapsed completely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Transport All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group