LittleMate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 6:59 pm
I'm generally pro privatisation, but the train system is a basket case (as would the NHS be IMO). It would be best served back in the hands of government - but with set rules so neither neglect or consistent overspending can set in.
No,dont give it to the Government,they couldn't run a bath.
Nationalise it and gut out the bureaucrats, executives and other hangers on and then let the workers in the industry run it.
Are you using this whataboutery defence to endorse the current shambles?
It was a service that should never have been nationalised.
The fact that it was was driven by ideology promoted by the city who saw so many opportunities to gouge profits from contracts, transactions, advice, assets etc and then to walk away because they knew it was unworkable without MASSIVE amounts of free taxpayers money.
It was a shameful act of the Major led Tory government.
Lots of words to say you are not able to show how profitable or reliable railways were pre privatisation.
The railways were a basket case pre privatisation. Let's not forget the fact.
Who would want to go back to that simply o satisfy your socialist ideology
It's not going to benefit rail users to have an unprofitable unreliable railway that lacks leadership or Investment
A reliable railway is more important than the identity of the owner
At the risk of being banned until the end of the year, why don't you Feck right off you boring, smug, pedantic arsewipe. Everyone on this board thinks you're a complete tw*t and we want you to do one, bugger off, disappear up your own bumhole, basically FRO bollock chops!
Happy New Year!
So, how much help DD you need to come up with such an intellectual response.
Clearly you would prefer ideological ownership than a reliable railway.
Me? I prefer my railway to work and be reliable ( as is it's purpose) rather than worry solely about who owned it
LittleMate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 6:59 pm
I'm generally pro privatisation, but the train system is a basket case (as would the NHS be IMO). It would be best served back in the hands of government - but with set rules so neither neglect or consistent overspending can set in.
No,dont give it to the Government,they couldn't run a bath.
Nationalise it and gut out the bureaucrats, executives and other hangers on and then let the workers in the industry run it.
I do believe and have said on here many times it should be nationalised. However, max you way would lead to failure and what we had back in the 70’s, run It like a business, make a profit, but utilise that money in 2 ways. 1) to reinvest back in to the network, rolling stock etc and 2) to reduce fares to a more reasonable level and encourage further use of public transport thus cutting car and or road usage.
LittleMate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 6:59 pm
I'm generally pro privatisation, but the train system is a basket case (as would the NHS be IMO). It would be best served back in the hands of government - but with set rules so neither neglect or consistent overspending can set in.
No,dont give it to the Government,they couldn't run a bath.
What I mean by that is a government body - so accountable directly to the government and measured against a series of rules/benchmarks. It used to be called British Rail back in the bad old days - but I'd like to see something with a little bit more commercial orientation. If I thought a little more about this then I'd make it a company with state control. That way managers can profit and advance - so making the system more operationally and financially sound.
Lots of words to say you are not able to show how profitable or reliable railways were pre privatisation.
The railways were a basket case pre privatisation. Let's not forget the fact.
Who would want to go back to that simply o satisfy your socialist ideology
It's not going to benefit rail users to have an unprofitable unreliable railway that lacks leadership or Investment
A reliable railway is more important than the identity of the owner
At the risk of being banned until the end of the year, why don't you Feck right off you boring, smug, pedantic arsewipe. Everyone on this board thinks you're a complete tw*t and we want you to do one, bugger off, disappear up your own bumhole, basically FRO bollock chops!
Happy New Year!
So, how much help DD you need to come up with such an intellectual response.
Clearly you would prefer ideological ownership than a reliable railway.
Me? I prefer my railway to work and be reliable ( as is it's purpose) rather than worry solely about who owned it
LittleMate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 6:59 pm
I'm generally pro privatisation, but the train system is a basket case (as would the NHS be IMO). It would be best served back in the hands of government - but with set rules so neither neglect or consistent overspending can set in.
No,dont give it to the Government,they couldn't run a bath.
What I mean by that is a government body - so accountable directly to the government and measured against a series of rules/benchmarks. It used to be called British Rail back in the bad old days - but I'd like to see something with a little bit more commercial orientation. If I thought a little more about this then I'd make it a company with state control. That way managers can profit and advance - so making the system more operationally and financially sound.
S'ok I wasn't having a go at you but you know what I mean.
Back on topic, Euston to Glasgow Central return for total of £72,1st class up, cattle class down. Return was £19, and I upgraded for a tenner over cattle class on the way up, early departure so breakfast and lunch supplied.
Given I often drive, it's a full tank each way c.£55 so a no brainer given flights at the time were £50 each way.
No,dont give it to the Government,they couldn't run a bath.
What I mean by that is a government body - so accountable directly to the government and measured against a series of rules/benchmarks. It used to be called British Rail back in the bad old days - but I'd like to see something with a little bit more commercial orientation. If I thought a little more about this then I'd make it a company with state control. That way managers can profit and advance - so making the system more operationally and financially sound.
S'ok I wasn't having a go at you but you know what I mean.
I didn't feel you were - just felt like explaining myself. Up the O's.
