OV9

Beany wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 8:59 am Hey look, Sunak is saying they won't do things they never agreed to do and have already repeatedly ruled out, as if it's something they're about to start fighting in the trenches about.



Fucking pathetic.

GG. wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 9:49 am The French are proposing banning all internal flights for example.

dinny_g wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 9:55 am

GG. wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 9:49 am The French are proposing banning all internal flights for example.

Have banned short haul flights

https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/12/ ... -proposals

GG. wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 9:46 am

Beany wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 5:30 pm I could have done South London.

I don't remember you applying for a visa to stay in the socialist republic of South London. Where were you?

GG. wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 9:58 am

dinny_g wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 9:55 am

GG. wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 9:49 am The French are proposing banning all internal flights for example.

Have banned short haul flights

https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/12/ ... -proposals

Its the kind of stupid thing we'd follow forgetting no one can afford to use the expensive slow arse unreliable constantly on strike trains that often...

jamcg wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 12:09 pm

GG. wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 9:58 am

dinny_g wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 9:55 am

Have banned short haul flights

https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/12/ ... -proposals

Its the kind of stupid thing we'd follow forgetting no one can afford to use the expensive slow arse unreliable constantly on strike trains that often...

Fixed that for you

dinny_g wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 12:12 pm Because we sold them to German and French train companies who charge us a fortune to basically subsidise cheap travel in France and Germany

Good one Tories… thanks..,

Beany wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 1:09 pm It's almost like trying to run mainline public services for profit is a fucking idiotic idea that never works, as all you end up with service suffering to maintain profit and shareholder value.

I'm not saying we should go full communism, but running public services at a minor loss should just be an acceptable cost of having decent public services at a reasonable price in a modern society, as opposed to laughably expensive, utterly shit public services so that a few dozen execs can ensure they get their six and seven figure bonuses.

Beany wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 1:20 pm It would still be shit, but at least there wouldn't be rapacious lining of pockets at the executive level*, which is what really grinds my fucking gears.

Oh, water leaks everywhere? Let me worry about that from the second pool I've built for my mansion, etc.


*edit: At least, not the same extent

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 1:18 pm

Beany wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 1:09 pm It's almost like trying to run mainline public services for profit is a fucking idiotic idea that never works, as all you end up with service suffering to maintain profit and shareholder value.

I'm not saying we should go full communism, but running public services at a minor loss should just be an acceptable cost of having decent public services at a reasonable price in a modern society, as opposed to laughably expensive, utterly shit public services so that a few dozen execs can ensure they get their six and seven figure bonuses.

Word.

Ian Hislop did an interesting series a few years ago on the history of rail. One of the issues raised in that was that you simply cannot run rail services to an acceptable standard that will return a profit. You just have to take it on the chin that some things just cost the public purse. The trouble in this country is that our public sector is woefully inefficient so I'm not wholly convinced it would be much better or cheaper under public ownership.

Jobbo wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 3:47 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 1:18 pm

Beany wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 1:09 pm It's almost like trying to run mainline public services for profit is a fucking idiotic idea that never works, as all you end up with service suffering to maintain profit and shareholder value.

I'm not saying we should go full communism, but running public services at a minor loss should just be an acceptable cost of having decent public services at a reasonable price in a modern society, as opposed to laughably expensive, utterly shit public services so that a few dozen execs can ensure they get their six and seven figure bonuses.

Word.

Ian Hislop did an interesting series a few years ago on the history of rail. One of the issues raised in that was that you simply cannot run rail services to an acceptable standard that will return a profit. You just have to take it on the chin that some things just cost the public purse. The trouble in this country is that our public sector is woefully inefficient so I'm not wholly convinced it would be much better or cheaper under public ownership.

If it doesn’t make a profit, why would any private company take it on at all? In which case to offer the service, you have to either keep it publicly owned or give public money to a private organisation for the shareholders to make profits. The latter just looks dodgy.

Jobbo wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 3:47 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 1:18 pm

Beany wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 1:09 pm It's almost like trying to run mainline public services for profit is a fucking idiotic idea that never works, as all you end up with service suffering to maintain profit and shareholder value.

I'm not saying we should go full communism, but running public services at a minor loss should just be an acceptable cost of having decent public services at a reasonable price in a modern society, as opposed to laughably expensive, utterly shit public services so that a few dozen execs can ensure they get their six and seven figure bonuses.

Word.

Ian Hislop did an interesting series a few years ago on the history of rail. One of the issues raised in that was that you simply cannot run rail services to an acceptable standard that will return a profit. You just have to take it on the chin that some things just cost the public purse. The trouble in this country is that our public sector is woefully inefficient so I'm not wholly convinced it would be much better or cheaper under public ownership.

If it doesn’t make a profit, why would any private company take it on at all? In which case to offer the service, you have to either keep it publicly owned or give public money to a private organisation for the shareholders to make profits. The latter just looks dodgy.

Beany wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 1:09 pm It's almost like trying to run mainline public services for profit is a fucking idiotic idea that never works, as all you end up with service suffering to maintain profit and shareholder value.

I'm not saying we should go full communism, but running public services at a minor loss should just be an acceptable cost of having decent public services at a reasonable price in a modern society, as opposed to laughably expensive, utterly shit public services so that a few dozen execs can ensure they get their six and seven figure bonuses.

Jobbo wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 5:02 pm I don’t see how monopolies like rail and water can sensibly be held privately, to be honest, but they are. I really don’t think there would be a great objection to renationalising them both.