Thatcher deid

[Ad Lib]

And yet look at Deutsche Bundesbahn (or SNCF for that matter.) Both state owned rail networks that have lower fares and better service than this state-subsidised private piss take we have now.

And the utilities which were sold off and fleecing us now? German, French, Spanish owned. Complete oligopoly.

Not all her privitisations were a raging success (and yes, it was Major carrying on Thatcherism that sold off the railways) but, for the record, the taxpayer subsidises the railways to a higher level than BR ever had.

People look on the BR days with rose tinted spectacles. The infrastructure was crumbling. For all the rep services get now, the number of cancelled and late services is a minute fraction of what it was in the 70s and 80s.

The problem with the rail network is that actually it's not privatised at all. Network Rail, a government owned statutory corporation, owns the entire infrastructure. What we have are region-specific monopoly tenders for the operation of the rolling stock.

The Germans and the French have affordable rail services because they have largely ripped up their old infrastructure when they've felt like it, and rebuilt lines from scratch. The closest thing we've had to that was HS1 and the Eurostar. They also pay considerable government subsidies for their fares.

State ownership is not a panacea to good rail services.

[KnightswoodBear]

Coincedentally, she's being planted on my birthday

[speckled tangerine]

People look on the BR days with rose tinted spectacles. The infrastructure was crumbling. For all the rep services get now, the number of cancelled and late services is a minute fraction of what it was in the 70s and 80s.

The problem with the rail network is that actually it's not privatised at all. Network Rail, a government owned statutory corporation, owns the entire infrastructure. What we have are region-specific monopoly tenders for the operation of the rolling stock.

The Germans and the French have affordable rail services because they have largely ripped up their old infrastructure when they've felt like it, and rebuilt lines from scratch. The closest thing we've had to that was HS1 and the Eurostar. They also pay considerable government subsidies for their fares.

State ownership is not a panacea to good rail services.

So, a private monopoly (such as FirstScotrail near enough is) receiving huge subsidies is preferable to a state monopoly? I don't think so.

FirstScotrail made over £20 million in profits for last year and a subsidy from the Scottish Government of £305 Million. Here's a wacky idea. Why don't we just renationalise the thing north of the border and spend £325 million on it?

And this total nonsense of paying fines for poor service does not come out of this 20 million made, rather the pockets of rail users.

There was absolutely no doubt that the lack of investment prior to privitisation was to pave the way for it. Exactly the same as Royal Mail now.

[Jacksgranda]

People look on the BR days with rose tinted spectacles. The infrastructure was crumbling. For all the rep services get now, the number of cancelled and late services is a minute fraction of what it was in the 70s and 80s.

The problem with the rail network is that actually it's not privatised at all. Network Rail, a government owned statutory corporation, owns the entire infrastructure. What we have are region-specific monopoly tenders for the operation of the rolling stock.

The Germans and the French have affordable rail services because they have largely ripped up their old infrastructure when they've felt like it, and rebuilt lines from scratch. The closest thing we've had to that was HS1 and the Eurostar. They also pay considerable government subsidies for their fares.

State ownership is not a panacea to good rail services.

What has been spent on subsidies could just as equally well have been spent if not privatised.

So, a private monopoly (such as FirstScotrail near enough is) receiving huge subsidies is preferable to a state monopoly? I don't think so.

FirstScotrail made over £20 million in profits for last year and a subsidy from the Scottish Government of £305 Million. Here's a wacky idea. Why don't we just renationalise the thing north of the border and spend £325 million on it?

And this total nonsense of paying fines for poor service does not come out of this 20 million made, rather the pockets of rail users.

There was absolutely no doubt that the lack of investment prior to privitisation was to pave the way for it. Exactly the same as Royal Mail now.

It might happen yet! Privatise or nationalise - not half and half. What we have at the minute is the worst of both worlds.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Jacksgranda

[Ayrforce1]

Copies an old George Galloway tweet for a reply - typical bien-pensant vermin unable to articulate for themselves.

The irony is that if Thatcher had never existed, he'd never have been able to make his career as a mob orator barfing specious platitudes while doing even less for the "working class" he claims to love than even the most useless piece of county set Tory MP lobby fodder.

Nope you are wrong yet again el chumpo.

Erm you really are angry yet don't seem to know what about?

Is it romanov?

You do know that your tedious point is about galloway and not foulks?

Is it the name george that brings the seethe?

Tedious pri*k.

[Ad Lib]

So, a private monopoly (such as FirstScotrail near enough is) receiving huge subsidies is preferable to a state monopoly? I don't think so.

Not inherently, no. If you believe in subsidy the question comes entirely down to the empirical question, which one provides the best rail service in terms of provision and affordability for the same subsidy or less.

FirstScotrail made over £20 million in profits for last year and a subsidy from the Scottish Government of £305 Million. Here's a wacky idea. Why don't we just renationalise the thing north of the border and spend £325 million on it?

It's not necessarily that simple. Note, however, that the logic of this argument is precisely that all state owned companies that make a loss should be privatised completely. In many respects, the government subsidy exists to leverage private finance that would not have otherwise also gone into making the service work. That's the entire logic of a state subsidy: if you couldn't leverage the private finance, the operation would have cost more to run directly out of government funds. Now people like me are actually sceptical that these subsidies work, and that you're really leveraging something that was not already going to be invested if you hadn't, but particularly given the NetworkRail split, it's little wonder that there's no incentive on the part of the service operators to invest in infrastructure when all they have to do is effectively lease use of it.

I'm sympathetic to calls to bring the rail network entirely back under government control (possibly into regions). But for reasons of transparency, not because it would necessarily save money. The half way house we have just now gives us the worst of the state and the market, not the best.

There was absolutely no doubt that the lack of investment prior to privitisation was to pave the way for it. Exactly the same as Royal Mail now.

It's not about "lack of investment". It's about where government investment had been going. While the Japanese invested in the Bullet and Europeans were investing in high speed rail, we wasted money on things like the Intercity 125.

[Jacksgranda]

Not inherently, no. If you believe in subsidy the question comes entirely down to the empirical question, which one provides the best rail service in terms of provision and affordability for the same subsidy or less.

It's not necessarily that simple. Note, however, that the logic of this argument is precisely that all state owned companies that make a loss should be privatised completely. In many respects, the government subsidy exists to leverage private finance that would not have otherwise also gone into making the service work. That's the entire logic of a state subsidy: if you couldn't leverage the private finance, the operation would have cost more to run directly out of government funds. Now people like me are actually sceptical that these subsidies work, and that you're really leveraging something that was not already going to be invested if you hadn't, but particularly given the NetworkRail split, it's little wonder that there's no incentive on the part of the service operators to invest in infrastructure when all they have to do is effectively lease use of it.

I'm sympathetic to calls to bring the rail network entirely back under government control (possibly into regions). But for reasons of transparency, not because it would necessarily save money. The half way house we have just now gives us the worst of the state and the market, not the best.

It's not about "lack of investment". It's about where government investment had been going. While the Japanese invested in the Bullet and Europeans were investing in high speed rail, we wasted money on things like the Intercity 125.

Couldn't agree more, maybe it wouldn't save money, it might cost more, but the present system is a nonsense, imo.

[Pesadilla]

Whichever way you look at it, there's something unedifying about students dancing about the street celebrating someones death. These will be the same students who identify politically with the likes of Stalin, conveniently ignoring the inordinate death toll extreme leftist governments have accumulated around the world.

For all her ills, I for one, would not have wished death on her or anyone else for that matter and it saddens me slightly to witness the undignified way which some people react to the death of another.

[Paulo Sergio]

It seems the anti-Scottish Haters Gonna Hate/Tommy Wiseau from Kickback didn't like my JJ pleasing post. Shame.

[Jacksgranda]

It's not about "lack of investment". It's about where government investment had been going. While the Japanese invested in the Bullet and Europeans were investing in high speed rail, we wasted money on things like the Intercity 125.

Just as well we didn't up the ante and try to develop an Intercity 126 - how much would that not have wasted?

[vikingTON]

Whichever way you look at it, there's something unedifying about students dancing about the street celebrating someones death. These will be the same students who identify politically with the likes of Stalin, conveniently ignoring the inordinate death toll extreme leftist governments have accumulated around the world.

lol wut

Nice of you to have a good greet about the 'inordinate death toll' caused by the extreme left: given yesterday's Hell Entry was all-too pally with the likes of Pinochet, the Khmer Rouge, Suharto and Saddam Hussein. I'd suggest that the value of the person can be identified by their friends: she was certainly in good company.

Not to mention that useless fud Reagan.

[Cliche Guevara]

Whichever way you look at it, there's something unedifying about students dancing about the street celebrating someones death. These will be the same students who identify politically with the likes of Stalin, conveniently ignoring the inordinate death toll extreme leftist governments have accumulated around the world.

For all her ills, I for one, would not have wished death on her or anyone else for that matter and it saddens me slightly to witness the undignified way which some people react to the death of another.

No it won't

[Daviehaybhoy]

This dancing in the streets carry on is a reflection of how poisonous and bitter the progressive left are.

Also and unrelated to the above, Derek Hatton and the like making snide remarks only because he failed miserably as a politician.

Margaret Thatcher succeeded spectacularly.

[vikingTON]

0/10 seamus.

[Pesadilla]

lol wut

Nice of you to have a good greet about the 'inordinate death toll' caused by the extreme left: given yesterday's Hell Entry was all-too pally with the likes of Pinochet, the Khmer Rouge, Suharto and Saddam Hussein. I'd suggest that the value of the person can be identified by their friends: she was certainly in good company.

Not to mention that useless fud Reagan.

Yeah OK, I'm having a "good greet".

My point, put in more simple terms, is that it's quite hypocritical for those that identify with the far left in society to scream and shout about what a monster Thatcher was.

I don't defend Thatcher or her policies, I just don't see the need to go out and celebrate, mostly in order to get your bonce on the box. Those that did so showed a distinct lack of maturity and dignity.

[Daviehaybhoy]

0/10 seamus.

Why?

[Guest The Phoenix]

Why?

Because you can't score less than 0.

[sparky88]

It's not about "lack of investment". It's about where government investment had been going. While the Japanese invested in the Bullet and Europeans were investing in high speed rail, we wasted money on things like the Intercity 125.

It's instructive that emerging economies such as Brazil have in fact scaled back their rail services rather than building more. The money could have been spent elsewhere, I think the attachment to the railways is an emotional one, although this might be changing given that some folk in south east of England spend a quarter of their income on their season ticket....

[Daviehaybhoy]

Because you can't score less than 0.

Your avatar is disgusting sir

[Guest The Phoenix]

Your avatar is disgusting sir

-1/10