|
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
On Aug 17, 2:51*am, Charlie Hulme
wrote: On 17/08/2011 10:32, 1506 wrote: Having been away for many years, one is pleasantly surprised by the improvements the badly designed privatization has brought about. South West Trains is on a whole new level of comfort compared to BR. They came along just at the time when new rolling stock needed to be ordered. I think we can safely assume that slam-door stock would not be running today if BR had survived at it was ... or been allowed to bid for franchises as has happened elsewhere with the state railway organisations. BR could have been running some Bavarian branch lines by now! Charlie That does not explain the other improvements. SWT stations are in much better shape. Their staff shows an appropriate level of respect for the customers. The trains are reasonably timely. New Southern Railway is pretty good. Except that their services stop at the sight of a snowflake. First Great Western is not at all impressive, what with dirty trains and surly staff. The worst is TfL; the London Subway is dirty, hot, unreliable, and staffed, in my experience, by jobsworths. OTOH, I am impressed by the LUL station dwell times. As soon as the train has stopped the doors open. The doors remain open just long enough, close, and the train pulls away. Now if SWT could achieve the same it would be a great improvement. After their trains stop it takes several second for the open door LEDs to light. Then the station dwell times tend to be excessive. |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
On 17/08/2011 19:01, 1506 wrote:
The worst is TfL; the London Subway is dirty, hot, unreliable, and staffed, in my experience, by jobsworths. So, depending on the exact problem to be solved, go to Greggs or use a pelican crossing. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
"Arthur Figgis" wrote: On 17/08/2011 19:01, 1506 wrote: The worst is TfL; the London Subway is dirty, hot, unreliable, and staffed, in my experience, by jobsworths. So, depending on the exact problem to be solved, go to Greggs or use a pelican crossing. :-) (Is a busker a "jobsworth"? They are capable of being deliberately obstructive at times...) |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
why not go the whole way?
http://www.financialreform.info/f_r_...ne_letter.html http://www.financialreform.info/f_r_free_travel.html |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
On Aug 17, 7:01*pm, 1506 wrote:
On Aug 17, 2:51*am, Charlie Hulme wrote: On 17/08/2011 10:32, 1506 wrote: Having been away for many years, one is pleasantly surprised by the improvements the badly designed privatization has brought about. South West Trains is on a whole new level of comfort compared to BR. They came along just at the time when new rolling stock needed to be ordered. I think we can safely assume that slam-door stock would not be running today if BR had survived at it was ... or been allowed to bid for franchises as has happened elsewhere with the state railway organisations. BR could have been running some Bavarian branch lines by now! Charlie That does not explain the other improvements. *SWT stations are in much better shape. *Their staff shows an appropriate level of respect for the customers. *The trains are reasonably timely. Considering that you live in the United States (do correct me if I'm wrong), I hardly think you're in a position to lecture us on how wonderful the privatised railway is in Britain. It's very easy to spout on about recent improvements (real or imaginary) while pretending that if BR had never been broken up and privatised, the railway today would be exactly the same as it was in the mid 1990s, except that the trains and infrastructure would all have aged by another fifteen years or so. British taxpayers like me are giving five times as much money to the privatised rail industry as we did to BR. Are today's passengers experiencing corresponding benefits to justify this? I don't think so. Rail privatisation was a victory for capitalist ideology; in all other respects it has been a spectacular failure of scandalous proportions. The Tories won't admit it has failed; certainly not as long as there are other public assets left that they want to see flogged off for short-term gain. The worst is TfL; the London Subway is dirty, hot, unreliable, and staffed, in my experience, by jobsworths. Predictably, the worst of your double-barrelled venom is reserved for TfL, as a government body. If privatisation of the main GB railways has been so successful in your view, why are we not hearing constant calls - from passengers, staff or even backbench Tory MPs - for the complete privatisation of the London Underground (or, for that matter, Translink), so that more of us can benefit from the same ever-so- efficient privately run transport Utopia? http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/630 |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
On 17/08/2011 20:29, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/630 I would sign th e-petition, but so far I have been unable to sign any. When I got the e-mail to confirm my identity, the link took me back to the signing page. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Quote:
You are quite right to point out that we taxpayers are paying far more in subsidies than ever we did when the railways were nationalised but you are slightly off target about the privatisation. First, it was not a victory only for capitalist ideology (or Tory dogma). It was also a victory for spivery on a huge scale. John Major's government knowingly undervalued the railway assets massively and stipulated that a large percentage of the shares were to be reserved for big financial institutions. In other words the Tory's friends in the City were given a vast profit for doing nothing and the British people were defauded of part of the value of their assets. I'm quite sure those institutions were very grateful to John Major and his government and I take it for granted that they expressed their gratitude in a way that John Major and his colleagues found most satisfying. I'm also sure that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown took note of what was going on and decided that they too would help the big financial institutions when it was their turn to ruin the country. That, beyond rational dispute, was why they persisted with PPP even when it had been proved comprehensively to be against the public interest; and that, beyond rational dispute, is why Tony Blair puts it about that he has earned millions since leaving office. Second, privatisation has not been a total failure. The railways are now doing more business than previously including freight. I doubt if that increase would have occured under public ownership. |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
"Robin9" wrote in message
[color=blue][i] Railsigns.co.uk;122015 Wrote: It's very easy to spout on about recent improvements (real or imaginary) while pretending that if BR had never been broken up and privatised, the railway today would be exactly the same as it was in the mid 1990s, except that the trains and infrastructure would all have aged by another fifteen years or so. British taxpayers like me are giving five times as much money to the privatised rail industry as we did to BR. Are today's passengers experiencing corresponding benefits to justify this? I don't think so. Rail privatisation was a victory for capitalist ideology; in all other respects it has been a spectacular failure of scandalous proportions. The Tories won't admit it has failed; certainly not as long as there are other public assets left that they want to see flogged off for short-term gain. Does anyone have any real idea of what the railway system would be like today if it had not been privatised? You are quite right to point out that we taxpayers are paying far more in subsidies than ever we did when the railways were nationalised but you are slightly off target about the privatisation. First, it was not a victory only for capitalist ideology (or Tory dogma). It was also a victory for spivery on a huge scale. John Major's government knowingly undervalued the railway assets massively and stipulated that a large percentage of the shares were to be reserved for big financial institutions. In other words the Tory's friends in the City were given a vast profit for doing nothing and the British people were defauded of part of the value of their assets. Could you be more specific on this? After all, the Roscos and Tocs were not owned by the City institutions at privatisation, and nor was Railtrack. So, which financial institutions exactly benefited from these reserved shares? On the other hand, a lot of lawyers and accountants did very well out of the complex restructuring. They didn't buy any part of the system, but were well paid for helping carve it up. Major's government probably did sell it all off too cheaply, not so much as to benefit their pals, but to make sure it all got sold off before they lost power. They also made it as complex as possible for an incoming Labour government to re-nationalise it. So it was ideology (and incompetence by a tired, failing government), not spivery, at work. |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
In message
, at 00:46:33 on Fri, 19 Aug 2011, 1506 remarked: Second, privatisation has not been a total failure. The railways are now doing more business than previously including freight. I doubt if that increase would have occured under public ownership. The low price was probably to ensure that the sale succeeded. As is always the case with such privatisations. My recollection is that there was considerable doubt that anyone would want to buy what was a run-down network with falling passenger numbers. -- Roland Perry |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
In message , at 00:46:33 on Fri, 19 Aug 2011, 1506 remarked: Second, privatisation has not been a total failure. The railways are now doing more business than previously including freight. I doubt if that increase would have occured under public ownership. The low price was probably to ensure that the sale succeeded. As is always the case with such privatisations. My recollection is that there was considerable doubt that anyone would want to buy what was a run-down network with falling passenger numbers. Indeed, and if such a sale had succeeded, there would now be much wailing and gnashing of teeth at the low price that was paid for something now deemed to be much more valuable. |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
In message , at 09:56:49 on
Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Recliner remarked: Second, privatisation has not been a total failure. The railways are now doing more business than previously including freight. I doubt if that increase would have occured under public ownership. The low price was probably to ensure that the sale succeeded. As is always the case with such privatisations. My recollection is that there was considerable doubt that anyone would want to buy what was a run-down network with falling passenger numbers. Indeed, and if such a sale had succeeded, there would now be much wailing and gnashing of teeth at the low price that was paid for something now deemed to be much more valuable. It's a shame that people who think it was sold too cheap didn't join in the "making a killing" at the time. -- Roland Perry |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
"Roland Perry" wrote: [snip] It's a shame that people who think it was sold too cheap didn't join in the "making a killing" at the time. Some people actually have beliefs about public ownership - it's not all just about trying to rake it in. |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
In message , at 10:27:59 on Fri, 19 Aug
2011, Mizter T remarked: It's a shame that people who think it was sold too cheap didn't join in the "making a killing" at the time. Some people actually have beliefs about public ownership - it's not all just about trying to rake it in. It's interesting how the "too cheap" and "but public ownership is better" viewpoints often co-incide in self selecting groups such as this! Maybe they should have bought it and run as a CoOp, but it would probably have been as successful as the Meriden Motorcycle works. -- Roland Perry |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
In message , Roland Perry
writes Maybe they should have bought it and run as a CoOp, but it would probably have been as successful as the Meriden Motorcycle works. The John Lewis partnership might be a better model. -- Paul Terry |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
In message , at 16:06:20 on Fri, 19
Aug 2011, Paul Terry remarked: Maybe they should have bought it and run as a CoOp, but it would probably have been as successful as the Meriden Motorcycle works. The John Lewis partnership might be a better model. I wonder how "never knowingly undersold" would apply to split ticketing? -- Roland Perry |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
On 19/08/2011 10:27, Mizter T wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote: [snip] It's a shame that people who think it was sold too cheap didn't join in the "making a killing" at the time. Some people actually have beliefs about public ownership - it's not all just about trying to rake it in. Do many people believe enough to be keen to turn down a chance to get rich quick? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
On Aug 20, 8:09*am, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 19/08/2011 08:46, 1506 wrote: . . . . .*I do not mean that he should be hanged, Why not? And by what part of his anatomy? |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
On Aug 20, 12:34*am, 82045 wrote:
On Aug 20, 8:09*am, Martin Edwards wrote: On 19/08/2011 08:46, 1506 wrote: . . . . .*I do not mean that he should be hanged, Why not? And by what part of his anatomy? Correction: You attributed that comment to me. It is not mine. |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
On Aug 19, 3:24*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:27:59 on Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Mizter T remarked: It's a shame that people who think it was sold too cheap didn't join in *the "making a killing" at the time. Some people actually have beliefs about public ownership - it's not all just about trying to rake it in. It's interesting how the "too cheap" and "but public ownership is better" viewpoints often co-incide in self selecting groups such as this! Maybe they should have bought it and run as a CoOp, but it would probably have been as successful as the Meriden Motorcycle works. Meriden Motorcycles, one of Viscount Stansgate's many failed ventures. Somehow, a view prevails that only left wingers have beliefs and a conscience. One can equally argue the morality of the 1948 acquisition of the big Four. Having nobly served the UK through the ravages of WWII, they were relieved of their assets. Justice would have been better served had they been given grants in order to repair their battered networks. That done, negotiations could have ensued with regard to what un-remunerative services should be return with taxpayer support. |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
"1506" wrote One can equally argue the morality of the 1948 acquisition of the big Four. Having nobly served the UK through the ravages of WWII, they were relieved of their assets. Justice would have been better served had they been given grants in order to repair their battered networks. That done, negotiations could have ensued with regard to what un-remunerative services should be return with taxpayer support. It was a matter of politics, not morality. You will have noticed that the British electorate in 1945 chose a Labour Government which had a programme of extensive nationalisation (just as, from 1979 to 1992 they chose Conservative Governments with a programme of privatisation). Peter |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
On 17/08/2011 19:45, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 11:01:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Aug 17, 2:51 am, Charlie wrote: On 17/08/2011 10:32, 1506 wrote: Having been away for many years, one is pleasantly surprised by the improvements the badly designed privatization has brought about. South West Trains is on a whole new level of comfort compared to BR. They came along just at the time when new rolling stock needed to be ordered. I think we can safely assume that slam-door stock would not be running today if BR had survived at it was ... or been allowed to bid for franchises as has happened elsewhere with the state railway organisations. BR could have been running some Bavarian branch lines by now! Charlie That does not explain the other improvements. SWT stations are in much better shape. Their staff shows an appropriate level of respect for the customers. The trains are reasonably timely. New Southern Railway is pretty good. Except that their services stop at the sight of a snowflake. First Great Western is not at all impressive, what with dirty trains and surly staff. The worst is TfL; the London Subway is dirty, hot, unreliable, and staffed, in my experience, by jobsworths. And, of course, you never ever meet jobsworths or surly staff in any "fully privatized" business do you? And every privately run bus runs exactly to time at incredibly cheap fares with spotless, well maintained vehicles. Err I think not. And I've obviously been mistaken when I bought an external hard drive last weekend and the "senior sales manager" carried on talking to his friend on his mobile while pretending to serve me? Or the checkout assistants in any supermarket you care to mention who are happy to talk to their colleagues and not even acknowledge your presence even when handing the money over. Bloody insulting service and they're supposed to be there to encourage you to come back. Err I think not. OTOH, I am impressed by the LUL station dwell times. As soon as the train has stopped the doors open. The doors remain open just long enough, close, and the train pulls away. Now if SWT could achieve the same it would be a great improvement. After their trains stop it takes several second for the open door LEDs to light. Then the station dwell times tend to be excessive. Yes well LUL is a metro so it is therefore essential to manage dwell times and especially on lines running very high frequencies under automatic control. SWT are a main line operator with a timetable that was rewritten to give high performance but on fairly relaxed run and dwell times. This was deemed to be better than a schedule that was tightly defined but impossible to run to because usage levels meant the dwell times were exceeded all the time. I seem to recall that the wait for the doors to open was due to waiting for a GPS signal to say it was OK. |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
"Tony Dragon" wrote in message
... I seem to recall that the wait for the doors to open was due to waiting for a GPS signal to say it was OK. It isn't on SWT Desiros - the guard's door opens as soon as he operates the controls. The delay is then down to the time taken for him to check the train is correctly platformed; he then releases the rest of the doors. AIUI GPS is only used to trigger the announcements on SWT. SN's units do use GPS (and CSDE) so their Electrostar doors are enabled as soon as they come to a halt. Paul S |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
|
Quote:
Thatcher's Government started privatising on a small scale and made all the shares available to the public. The shares sold out in advance and Opposition politicians said that proved the price had been set too low. When council houses were sold off for far less than their market value, the Tories' opponents and some irreverent journalists noticed a pattern emerging. I recall on radio programmes like "Today" Government Ministers being given a grilling on their failure to protect tax-payers by maximising revenue. Later, when the really big privatisations took place, the Tories announced that a chunk of the shares were being reserved for the big institutions. I seem to remember one minister being challenged on this and replying that some stability in the financial market was required for such a large privatisation and that if small shareholders quickly sold for a fast profit, this might unsettle the market! If my memory serves me correctly, at that time there was no suggestion by Opposition politicians or journalists that there was an "over-close relationship" - Harold Wilson's phrase incidentally - between the Tories and some people in the City. By the time John Major's Government decided to privatise the railways, the mood of the country had changed and cynicism about the Tories' integrity was widespread. No longer was the electorate prepared to give the Govenment the benefit of the doubt and when, once again, the price was set a level which most informed observers felt was way below the real value, accusations of corruption were thrown about gleefully. It is certainly the case that some people made a huge profit overnight. There was one instance of a company being sold soon after privatisation for 300 million more than the shareholders had paid for it. There must be plenty of information about all this on the Internet although, of course, some of the posters will have political axes to grind. |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
On 20/08/2011 12:21, 1506 wrote:
On Aug 20, 12:34 am, wrote: On Aug 20, 8:09 am, Martin wrote: On 19/08/2011 08:46, 1506 wrote: . . . . . I do not mean that he should be hanged, Why not? And by what part of his anatomy? Correction: You attributed that comment to me. It is not mine. It was mine. I don't mind a joke, but I am serious here. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
"Robin9" wrote in message
'Recliner[_2_ Wrote: ;122031'] Could you be more specific on this? After all, the Roscos and Tocs were not owned by the City institutions at privatisation, and nor was Railtrack. So, which financial institutions exactly benefited from these reserved shares? On the other hand, a lot of lawyers and accountants did very well out of the complex restructuring. They didn't buy any part of the system, but were well paid for helping carve it up. Major's government probably did sell it all off too cheaply, not so much as to benefit their pals, but to make sure it all got sold off before they lost power. They also made it as complex as possible for an incoming Labour government to re-nationalise it. So it was ideology (and incompetence by a tired, failing government), not spivery, at work. Quite frankly, after all these years, I don't know which institutions bought which shares. Essentially British Rail was split into various segments and shares in each segment were offered for sale. I think 20% was reserved for financial institutions. This was not the first privatisation where this had happened. Thatcher's Government started privatising on a small scale and made all the shares available to the public. The shares sold out in advance and Opposition politicians said that proved the price had been set too low. When council houses were sold off for far less than their market value, the Tories' opponents and some irreverent journalists noticed a pattern emerging. I recall on radio programmes like "Today" Government Ministers being given a grilling on their failure to protect tax-payers by maximising revenue. Later, when the really big privatisations took place, the Tories announced that a chunk of the shares were being reserved for the big institutions. I seem to remember one minister being challenged on this and replying that some stability in the financial market was required for such a large privatisation and that if small shareholders quickly sold for a fast profit, this might unsettle the market! If my memory serves me correctly, at that time there was no suggestion by Opposition politicians or journalists that there was an "over-close relationship" - Harold Wilson's phrase incidentally - between the Tories and some people in the City. By the time John Major's Government decided to privatise the railways, the mood of the country had changed and cynicism about the Tories' integrity was widespread. No longer was the electorate prepared to give the Govenment the benefit of the doubt and when, once again, the price was set a level which most informed observers felt was way below the real value, accusations of corruption were thrown about gleefully. It is certainly the case that some people made a huge profit overnight. There was one instance of a company being sold soon after privatisation for 300 million more than the shareholders had paid for it. There must be plenty of information about all this on the Internet although, of course, some of the posters will have political axes to grind. I suspect that you're one of the people with a political axe to grind. I don't think the privatisation of BR was corrupt, simply incompetent and ideological. It was rushed, as they were determined to complete it before the next election, which meant they put speed ahead of anything else, including getting the best price. Few components were sold as new PLCs that financial institutions could or would invest in, and it appears that no thought was put into creating stable, efficient companies. The biggest reason for the low prices was Prescott's threats to nationalise BR for minimal compensation. That scared off bidders with deep pockets, so MBOs bought many of the fragments of BR for low prices. Most sold out a few years later, once Labour's pre-election threats were exposed as hollow, making huge profits in the process (the Roscos being the prime example). The winners were BR managers, not pals of the previous government. The other major beneficiaries were the big legal and accounting firms who provided many millions of pounds of expensive advice (who gained just as much from Labour's PFI schemes, so they conscientiously befriend both major political parties). So John Prescott bears as much blame for the low prices as John Major. Both were useless, and promoted way beyond their capabilities. And when you talk about mysterious 'financial institutions', these are mainly public pension funds and insurance companies investing your and my savings. we should all be happy if they do well. They tend to own the majority of stock in UK listed companies, so as you say, even if "Sids" (members of the public) initially buy privatised company stock, they tend to sell it on pretty soon (I wish I'd dumped my Railtrack stock a lot quicker than I did). Administering large stockholder lists is expensive for public companies, and those armies of small stockholders rarely bother to use their votes or even read the thick, glossy annual reports that thud on to their doormats -- so they are quite relieved when large, professional financial institutions buy them out (I speak from personal experience as a smallish shareholder in scores of public companies and funds). The small shareholders of privatised utility companies made quick, easy but modest tax-free profits (as they were usually well below the capital gains tax threshold), so everyone was happy. |
Quote:
Your interpretation of how the Tories privatised the railways ignores the fact that there had already been a consistent pattern of nationalised assets being under valued. I imagine many Tories would laugh long and hard at the idea that they ever took John Prescott seriously. There are three serious flaws in your assertion that it doesn't really matter if some pension funds made a quick profit. First, not everyone has a private pension and if their nationalised assets are sold off cheaply they may be called upon to pay more in taxation than might otherwise have been the case. Second, pension funds are not the only kind of financial institution and third, many people have since railway privatisation discovered that their pension fund has woefully underperformed. |
E-petition: "Re Nationalise Railways"
"Robin9" wrote in message
Which political axe do you suspect me of grinding? I'm not aware of having one. I support no political party and have no ideolological attitude to public ownership of industries and services. I want whatever works best for the country as a whole. You accuse the John Major Tories of corruption, when I think they were merely ideological and incompetent. Your interpretation of how the Tories privatised the railways ignores the fact that there had already been a consistent pattern of nationalised assets being under valued. I imagine many Tories would laugh long and hard at the idea that they ever took John Prescott seriously. I didn't say the Tories took Prescott seriously; few politicians did. I said that potential buyers of the railway assets were warned off from buying them, meaning that the buyers were MBOs who could only raise much smaller sums. When it became obvious that the nationalisation threat was hollow, they sold the firms on at realistic values, meaning they made big profits. There are three serious flaws in your assertion that it doesn't really matter if some pension funds made a quick profit. As I keep saying, it wasn't the pension funds who made the quick profit from privatised utilities, but the small share buyers who sold them on to pension funds. This didn't apply with rail privatisation, as the companies were not sold off as PLCs, apart from Railtrack. First, not everyone has a private pension and if their nationalised assets are sold off cheaply they may be called upon to pay more in taxation than might otherwise have been the case. True, I'm certainly not in favour of selling off nationalised assets at very low prices. John Major's government was idiotic to do so, and we're still paying the price. Second, pension funds are not the only kind of financial institution and third, many people have since railway privatisation discovered that their pension fund has woefully underperformed. As I said, it wasn't the pension funds who initially invested in the railway assets, so their performance has nothing to do with rail privatisation. Gordon Brown can take the credit for damaging Britain's private pension industry. |
"Having an axe to grind" is normally said of people who hold a very partisan view and who vigorously propagate that view to the annoyance of others. My view about the venality of politicians is not partisan. I expressly mentioned Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as well. In my case a more appropriate pejorative term would be "having a bee in my bonnet". Obviously I will disagree and say my opinion is calm, rational and in accordance with the evidence.
I am intrigued by your repeated insistence that the big pension funds did not buy shares in the various privatised utilities and sections of British Rail. How do you know this? Have you kept records of everyone who bought the shares? (I admit openly that I do not know who bought the shares) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk