Land use has always been a contentious subject.
I am for nationalising large assets that rely on substantial land use such as water and rail.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
I am for nationalising large assets that rely on substantial land use such as water and rail.
I suggested no such thing. You made it up.
I, m saying nationalising industry will not work and we know all the reasons why. We, ve been there before.
Last edited:
Nice one, showing the Nigel original image with his red spotted tie, and the red handkerchief in Kassam's pocket.
.
Because it was far cheaper to run under British Rail, and actually had timetables that worked.
It wasn't very good of course, just as it's far from good now, but that is in the nature of much of what we do, so we might as well just choose the money saving option.
.
Why should the tax payer put any money in at all, when only a small percentage use it. I would rather see the money go to health care. Nationalise water, as we all use that.
Nonsense. It’s like the myth peddled by the Tories about the three day week. Say it enough times and it becomes fact.
You can nationalise railways and utilities and still have them run as companies. The difference is those companies are owned by the state. We are subsidising the whole of Europe thanks to Thatchers failed policy. The rail is in a worse state than it’s ever been. The second most expensive in the world too. Look at cross rail. Southwestern. Virgin. Stagecoach. Disasters the lot of them. National rail never lost so much money in its entire history than cross rail has in a year ffs.
No. You are completely wrong on this. We are sick of paying for the privilege of buying what was ours and your horror stories of two generations ago mean nothing and are clearly an exaggeration based on a lie that has become fact.
Of course, but the taxpayer paid far, far less subsidy to British Rail than now to the private rail companies. Hence nationalising to save the taxpayer money every year and get cheaper standardised fares
I'd rather see the hugely wasteful NHS put in order before throwing any more money at it.
And that is what I posted, rail and water. Nationalising those two is Corbyn's intention, and I approve.
.
You can disregard your feelings for Dyson. He has been eloquent. His reason is that the infrastructure he needs is no longer available in the UK. He wants a widget for a prototype, there are few widget makers in Woking but plenty in China
Because freight is still shipped most efficiently in bulk by rail and that affects us all, though with the withdrawal of coal movements to power stations the total freight figure is down
The total volume of rail freight moved fell to 17 billion net tonne kilometres in 2017-18, a 1.7% reduction on 2016-17. This is the lowest total since the late 1990s.
The full picture is here
https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/27919/freight-rail-usage-2017-18-quarter-4.pdf
Railways are one of the Strategic pillars of the state and need protection for that reason.
Without the Railways we would have lost both worlds wars.
I agree, but i would still rather my money go to the nhs than a service i and many others don't use or need. The last time i used a train was in the early 80's, even then i only used the persil vouchers or the football specials to go to away matches.
About 10% of freight is moved by rail, not sure what a strategic pillar of the state is meant to mean. I think the railways are a good thing, just not paid for by the taxpayer.
Me too. I did use a suburban rail service nine years ago, but that was the first time I'd been on the railways for over 50 years!
But we do need better and cheaper rail services for a number of reasons:
Cheap and good rail services will get more people using them instead of clogging the roads.
Ditto for goods transport.
Rail services are far greener than road transport, less energy used and far less pollution.
The rail services in the North of the country are a disgrace for a so called first world nation. The North's economic problems wont be solved without much better communications.
Much more extensive high speed rail services can take the place of our internal airliner services. Those flights are wasteful, polluting and occupy take-off and landing spots. Replace them with high speed rail and maybe we won't need more runways built at Heathrow and Gatwick.
Our successful competitors internationally all have excellent rail services, mostly subsidised, part of the reason they are successful. Our broken down rail system is holding us back.
.
Looks like we have 3 voters for Corbyn then. He, s the only one who will nationalise anything, he wont have investment to do anything properly and whatever he nationalises will go even further down pan with both the poor organisation we, d put to control it and the stigma attached by public.
Yes, in theory national controlled services sound fine. In practice the reverse seems to occur.
All hypothetical anyway, Corbyn has about same chance as being PM as any poster on here does.
Subsidies are different to nationalisation. I do agree for certain services, specifically where a profit is impossible, subsidy or government ownership is probably only solution.
I remember in South Yorkshire a certain Ron Ironmonger instigated almost free public transport for all. Buses ran on time, lots of them, and cost was negligible. It was fantastic, apart from the cost and fact, noticed after investigation, buses were running 90% empty on 80% of journeys.
If you have to travel you have to pay going rate. Why should none travelling individials pay for others to commute. When they do, its called communism. If thats what you want, fine. But make no mistakes its where our current labour are heading.
The problems associated with nationalised industries are neither made up or exageratted.
I knew crane drivers working for BS who boasted about sleeping throughtout every night shift. People working in the industry knew full well it could not carry on. Further subsidies would just have produced more folk sleeping.
Yes , perhaps, times have changed but people do not.
If the threat of losing your job for either poor individual performance or not achieving a profit is removed, workers back off. Look at our success stories. Folk working hard for good rewards. Nationaliation removes that. Or, to be fair, every example of it I, ve witnessed does so.
Workers cooperatives are completely different.
Lets have some actual examples of succesful nationalised industries, apart from the Nazi ones. Or ones not costing a fortune that are presented as a front for some nation.
If we want a good rail service for all at relatively cheap cost and we are willing to simply pay what is needed then yes nationalise BR. It will be a drain on economy on par with NHS. Is that what people really want? Personally I do not. If you want cheap transport, buy a pedelec. Paying for NHS, social care, underpriviliged etc etc is our duty. Paying so folk can commute into London isnt.
Nationalising any industry is saying there you are, all the money you need. Its now a national charity not a national resource.
Yes, in theory national controlled services sound fine. In practice the reverse seems to occur.
All hypothetical anyway, Corbyn has about same chance as being PM as any poster on here does.
Subsidies are different to nationalisation. I do agree for certain services, specifically where a profit is impossible, subsidy or government ownership is probably only solution.
I remember in South Yorkshire a certain Ron Ironmonger instigated almost free public transport for all. Buses ran on time, lots of them, and cost was negligible. It was fantastic, apart from the cost and fact, noticed after investigation, buses were running 90% empty on 80% of journeys.
If you have to travel you have to pay going rate. Why should none travelling individials pay for others to commute. When they do, its called communism. If thats what you want, fine. But make no mistakes its where our current labour are heading.
The problems associated with nationalised industries are neither made up or exageratted.
I knew crane drivers working for BS who boasted about sleeping throughtout every night shift. People working in the industry knew full well it could not carry on. Further subsidies would just have produced more folk sleeping.
Yes , perhaps, times have changed but people do not.
If the threat of losing your job for either poor individual performance or not achieving a profit is removed, workers back off. Look at our success stories. Folk working hard for good rewards. Nationaliation removes that. Or, to be fair, every example of it I, ve witnessed does so.
Workers cooperatives are completely different.
Lets have some actual examples of succesful nationalised industries, apart from the Nazi ones. Or ones not costing a fortune that are presented as a front for some nation.
If we want a good rail service for all at relatively cheap cost and we are willing to simply pay what is needed then yes nationalise BR. It will be a drain on economy on par with NHS. Is that what people really want? Personally I do not. If you want cheap transport, buy a pedelec. Paying for NHS, social care, underpriviliged etc etc is our duty. Paying so folk can commute into London isnt.
Nationalising any industry is saying there you are, all the money you need. Its now a national charity not a national resource.
Last edited:
I agree with most of that, but why can't the cost of all that be passed onto the end consumer. If the cost of being greener is too high to pass on and it could be proved that freight and passengers would use it, then i might change my mind. They could nationalise ebikes and let everyone pay for ours.
Because that won't work! It's because so much cost is put on the tickets that rail isn't being used enough. Most of our ticket prices are far too high.
Everything I posted depends on rail travel being cheap as well as good, as it is for so many of our successful competitors.
Thats done by subsidies, and the benefits of the much better services pay back in numerous ways, particularly economic growth. End result is we all become better off with the subsidies covered.
.
To illustrate the difference, the rail service around the bottom of Spain going from Malaga along the coast to Gibraltar etc costs pennies to cover distances comparable to Bermingham to London or London to Brighton. .. what is the equivalent on the privitised services?.
For environmental reasons E-bikes should have a purchase subsidy, similar to that e-cars get.
I got £4500 of the price of my e-car, though the government has reduced that to £3500 now.
Pro rata that would be about 15% of a popular model's price. Taking popular as a £1500 e-bike would mean a fixed £225 government subsidy. Taking that £225 from the price would mean less VAT, on a £1500 e-bike for example saving a further £45.
So total saved £270, reduced e-bike price £1230.
.
Last edited: