London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 13th 03, 03:46 PM posted to uk.politics.misc,uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 107
Default Network Rail

wrote:

Thon Brocket wrote:


[ ... ]

Thatcher's privatisations were mostly hugely successful. They
began a world-wide trend of successful privatisation, which
continues.
So now viable industries (telecom, airlines) survive and prosper,
provide far better services than they did under state ownership,
and generate wealth for reinvestment through dividends.
Non-viable ones (steel, coal) go to the wall. Taxpayers no longer
have to fund haemorrhaging losses on what is essentially a very
expensive dole. The employees get proper, productive jobs in
viable industries. Viable, low-cost competitors overseas employ
more people, pulling them out of the abject poverty that so
exercises lefties. Consumers at home get cheaper coal and steel.
Everybody wins.


This doesn't apply to the railways though.


It could and should.

Often they aren't viable as
private companies which must make a profit, but the service they
provide is essential.


Not to me, they aren't.

I would rather stay out of the "paying for the railways club" for that very
reason.

Believe me, I have many better alternative uses for the money.

If all the railways that couldn't make a profit
either closed down or introduced higher fares it would be a disaster.
For a start it would render all sorts of other businesses non-viable
because their workers and customers couldn't get to them.


And that's the important point, isn't it?

*If* businesses are located in places that are effectively inaccessible by
road (stand forth, the City of London), then *those employers* are the ones
who should be paying the costs of the railways that bring their employees to
them - it is for their benefit, after all.

Why should old ladies in Keighley or trainee KFC managers in Bodmin.have to
bear the costs of running someone else's business in Leadenhall Street?



[NG x-postlist trimmed]





  #2   Report Post  
Old November 14th 03, 12:37 PM posted to uk.politics.misc,uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 114
Default Network Rail


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Thon Brocket wrote:


[ ... ]

Thatcher's privatisations were mostly hugely successful. They
began a world-wide trend of successful privatisation, which
continues.
So now viable industries (telecom, airlines) survive and prosper,
provide far better services than they did under state ownership,
and generate wealth for reinvestment through dividends.
Non-viable ones (steel, coal) go to the wall. Taxpayers no longer
have to fund haemorrhaging losses on what is essentially a very
expensive dole. The employees get proper, productive jobs in
viable industries. Viable, low-cost competitors overseas employ
more people, pulling them out of the abject poverty that so
exercises lefties. Consumers at home get cheaper coal and steel.
Everybody wins.


This doesn't apply to the railways though.


It could and should.

Often they aren't viable as
private companies which must make a profit, but the service they
provide is essential.


Not to me, they aren't.

I would rather stay out of the "paying for the railways club" for that

very
reason.

Believe me, I have many better alternative uses for the money.

If all the railways that couldn't make a profit
either closed down or introduced higher fares it would be a disaster.
For a start it would render all sorts of other businesses non-viable
because their workers and customers couldn't get to them.


And that's the important point, isn't it?

*If* businesses are located in places that are effectively inaccessible by
road (stand forth, the City of London), then *those employers* are the

ones
who should be paying the costs of the railways that bring their employees

to
them - it is for their benefit, after all.

Why should old ladies in Keighley or trainee KFC managers in Bodmin.have

to
bear the costs of running someone else's business in Leadenhall Street?


I think you'll find it's those very businesses in Leadenhall Street and
surrounding areas that subsidise much of the rest of the country, not the
other way round.

Surely businesses and people along the proposed Crossrail route (for
example) pay more than enough tax to justify building it?




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Independent article: Livingstone may run London rail network Jason London Transport 0 April 1st 04 04:11 PM
Left Luggage at Network Rail london Stations London Transport 3 January 19th 04 10:24 AM
Network Rail JNugent London Transport 24 November 15th 03 07:30 PM
Network Rail Colin McKenzie London Transport 0 October 25th 03 08:30 PM
Network rail & Clapham Junction John London Transport 5 October 4th 03 07:58 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017