Bit slow today. Have a nice punchy article asking why British people seem to hate the free market
Don't privatise our wonderful NHS!!! Nationalise the railways!!! I haven't really thought any of this through!!!
(
Mr Mann I love pigs, best of all the animals, Thu 24 Sep 2015, 13:44,
Reply)
British people don't hate the free market
But the people who shout loudest are the ones at the extremes of the political spectrum and the internet has given them a way to publish their frothings...so it just seems that everyone hates stuff, when in actual fact its a small circle jerk of left/right wing twunts reinforcing each others ill formed opinions.
(
DinivanX Has stinging piss after drinking Pact Coffee, Thu 24 Sep 2015, 13:54,
Reply)
My ill formed opinion....if the free market is involved then profit end up the main driver...
...it works for things like telecommunications where the medium can be carved up and there is a genuine market...but not so good with things like trains where as soon as contracts are won they have you by the balls.
(
transparenttown Dead to worse..., Thu 24 Sep 2015, 14:09,
Reply)
I sort of agree
and always thought that nationalising the railways would be a good idea.
But just because the Tories ballsed up the privatisation in the 90s doesn't mean that the theory isn't sound. If we can actually get true competition on routes (such is slowly beginning to emerge) then the benefits in terms of better trains and somewhat lower fares will start to emerge.
(
Mr Mann I love pigs, best of all the animals, Thu 24 Sep 2015, 14:49,
Reply)
it's cost an awful lot in subsidies and taken two decades to get to a point where you feel you can argue that it might at some point in the future start to be worth it.
I'm not that convinced.
(
tickle I was away, Thu 24 Sep 2015, 15:13,
Reply)
As opposed to the subsidies *everyone* paid when it was in national hands...?
The whole mess is Thatcher's legacy, coupled with the Beeching Axe under a Labour government
(
Mr Mann I love pigs, best of all the animals, Thu 24 Sep 2015, 15:29,
Reply)
if it costs subsidies either way why have a system where a private comany takes out 2050 million a year as well as not making a profit?
oops. :D 250 million. :D
(
tickle I was away, Fri 25 Sep 2015, 17:05,
Reply)
oh just a little couple more decades please?
*said like Mister Burns*
(, Thu 24 Sep 2015, 22:18, Reply)
You cannot get competition on routes, for the simple reason that only one train can go from A to B at any given time.
If I arrive at the train station, I will get on the next fastest train to where I want to go, regardless of who runs it.
If there is one in 5 minutes time, I'm on it, because no-one else can compete with that. There will be no other train going to where I want to go in 5 minutes time. If there were two trains going there at that time, I might have a choice, but the system would be woefully inefficient and the infrastructure which exists wouldn't be able to cope with that.
So nationalisation makes total sense.
(, Thu 24 Sep 2015, 17:23, Reply)
Slowly beginning to emerge?
I work for the biggest TOC in Europe, yet to see any evidence for this.
They've had nineteen years to emerge it at any speed they choose, it hasn't.
(
sir_spicious2000 Crap I've watched: www.filmplop.blogspot.com/, Fri 25 Sep 2015, 0:34,
Reply)
think its more about trust than hate
its easier to trust someone who is motivated by social conscience rather than greed, especially when you don't have much choice in using their services
(
mutated monty, Thu 24 Sep 2015, 14:37,
Reply)
Why don't the British want to be fucked as hard as the Americans?
It's just unreasonable!
(, Thu 24 Sep 2015, 14:58, Reply)
Because what the far-right tout as the 'free market' isn't free.
It's far too easily manipulated by incumbents and monopolies to stifle competition. They wouldn't bang on about it anywhere near as much if it wasn't so obviously corruptible.
(
joefish It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks, Thu 24 Sep 2015, 15:13,
Reply)
John Rentoul is a dobber.
What is this article even saying? It's just cuntish meanderings. What's his fucking point?
(
tickle I was away, Thu 24 Sep 2015, 15:20,
Reply)
Because those things are not a "free market"
In a free market people can vote with their wallets, meaning shit products/services fail and good products/services succeed. (In theory anyway, I realise we can all think of counter examples.) But this isn't what happens with the railways, to use them as an example. A franchise makes a bid and then the government is tied in for the duration of the franchise. And the passengers' only choice is to pick a different type of transport option (which may be utterly impractical), they can't
For it to be a "free market" the customers must be able to vote with their wallets, either by running franchises side-by-side on the same lines in competition (which isn't practical), or by writing the contracts such that the government/taxpayer can switch to a different option (which the lobbyists would never let them do).
(, Thu 24 Sep 2015, 15:20, Reply)
All of this plus...
..if an operator was stripped of a franchise (as you point out highly unlikely) the operator that moves in would likely buy the same rolling stock and employ the same people on the same lines, little would change. At least if it was public we would get a glimmer of joy every once in a while when the Minister for Transport was flogged for wasting our money.
(
transparenttown Dead to worse..., Thu 24 Sep 2015, 15:59,
Reply)