Europe --- In or Out

[ewerk 30259]

9 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Its immaterial what you do as everything has been sorted. Simply loose ends now being tied up, a bit of theatrical drama to make it look hard won and a nice big signing ceremony in December to leave Labour with no choice but to back it.

You're not an intelligent man, CT. The sooner you realise that the happier you will be.

[ewerk 30259]

10 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Good thing I don't want a hard left utopia then (was that a pun or a typo?).

 

I want a scandinavian model CT. That's all. That's all Labour seem to be proposing as well. The second they go further, they can be kicked out. I want a mixed economy. Not this privitised, dysfunctional hellhole that we seem to be living in. There are many examples of successful, functional mixed economies. The fact that you have to take the most extreme vision says it all. It's like when people on the left go around branding anyone with concerns about immigration a nazi. It's the same non-engagement with the argument.

What would you nationalise?

[Renton 21294]

6 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

As I mentioned in the politics thread, take some time to look back at our political past, what we were like when the government thought they knew best and how really shit people’s lives were compared to now.

 

This is the world Corbyn and McDonnel want to take us back too. Everything can be sorted by spending someone else’s money.

 

”Sick man of Europe” was our reputation. Thatcher dragged the country from its sickbed and Blair continued in overall the same vein.

 

Read your Guardian and immerse yourself in a hard left eutopia but it’s never worked here or anywhere else in the world.

 

Thatcher was a pro European and Chief architect of the single market. It was her that encouraged foreign investment by makng us the gateway to Europe. The very things you want to throw away.

 

Also, we were the sick man of Europe before we joined the EEC, and then we weren't. Can you see a connection there?

[Alex 34838]

3 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Labour's policies aren't that radical. 

But you already know that, otherwise you wouldn't have voted for them.

Basically mainstream social democracy on the continent. But hard left according to fuck wits who need to be spoonfed their info because they've never even read a book

[Rayvin 5176]

Just now, ewerk said:

What would you nationalise?

 

I'm struggling to think that the trains wouldn't be better served if they were nationalised, especially since the government just issues licenses, does it not? Just let them expire and then take over - I daresay costs will be involved but I doubt any companies will need buying. Also tempted to say water companies based on the evidence in that article, although the downside there is you'd have to pick up the debt with it I guess since the infrastructure is probably privately owned now.

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

8 minutes ago, Alex said:

No, that was down to Prog Rock

 

The disaffected youth singing political, anti-establishment songs was all down to Prog Rock? 

 

 

Give over.

[Meenzer 15401]

12 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Labour's policies aren't that radical. 

But you already know that, otherwise you wouldn't have voted for them.

 

[Dr Gloom 21812]

25 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

As I mentioned in the politics thread, take some time to look back at our political past, what we were like when the government thought they knew best and how really shit people’s lives were compared to now.

 

This is the world Corbyn and McDonnel want to take us back too. Everything can be sorted by spending someone else’s money.

 

”Sick man of Europe” was our reputation. Thatcher dragged the country from its sickbed and Blair continued in overall the same vein.

 

Read your Guardian and immerse yourself in a hard left eutopia but it’s never worked here or anywhere else in the world.

If you believe this to be true, why did you vote for it?

[Alex 34838]

1 minute ago, Anorthernsoul said:

 

The disaffected youth singing political, anti-establishment songs was all down to Prog Rock? 

 

 

Give over.

I was joking. There were plenty social problems. But, at the end of the day it was a short lived youth movement mainly about music and getting wrecked. Like just about every other youth scene. Are you saying wealth inequality was less at the end of the 90s because of Acid House and people being loved up? Because I'm failing to see your point

[Dr Gloom 21812]

24 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Good thing I don't want a hard left utopia then (was that a pun or a typo?).

 

I want a scandinavian model CT. That's all. That's all Labour seem to be proposing as well. The second they go further, they can be kicked out. I want a mixed economy. Not this privitised, dysfunctional hellhole that we seem to be living in. There are many examples of successful, functional mixed economies. The fact that you have to take the most extreme vision says it all. It's like when people on the left go around branding anyone with concerns about immigration a nazi. It's the same non-engagement with the argument.

 Having a bash at democratic socialism means we’re going to end up like Venezuela 

[ewerk 30259]

11 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I'm struggling to think that the trains wouldn't be better served if they were nationalised, especially since the government just issues licenses, does it not? Just let them expire and then take over - I daresay costs will be involved but I doubt any companies will need buying. Also tempted to say water companies based on the evidence in that article, although the downside there is you'd have to pick up the debt with it I guess since the infrastructure is probably privately owned now.

What do you see as the benefits of privatising the railways?

[Rayvin 5176]

6 minutes ago, ewerk said:

What do you see as the benefits of privatising the railways?

 

I think logically it should stand to reason that if the service can be operated at x cost, that is true whether or not the service is privitised or publicly owned. Therefore, railfares = x. The difference in the equation in terms of fares for rail passengers would be that in privately owned trains, the equation becomes railfares = x + y where y is profit.

 

Even if you take tax into the equation, the government could offset the loss in tax revenues by adding what they would have made to the public option, and it would still be less than y (since it would always be a %age of y).

 

Prepared to be wrong, but that would be my argument.

 

EDIT - oh and also, train companies don't appear to be running trains very well in general. Even if the government is shocking at it, it'll still be better.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Rayvin

[ewerk 30259]

Y is roughly 3.4% of revenue. Would that make a massive difference to the end user?

[Rayvin 5176]

Maybe it could be invested in less crowded trains. Better service. The point stands, surely, that it's effectively wasted as far as the public are concerned, at present.

[ewerk 30259]

But it isn't a massive amount in the overall scheme of things. At the moment there is a shared risk of losses with the rail companies. By nationalising the franchises the exchequer is assuming that full risk. Not to mention the fact that the government isn't great at handling these sort of endevours.

[Rayvin 5176]

Also, dare I say it, the more publicly owned utilities there are, the greater your economies of scale. For instance, say they take electricity back. The same saving applies there concerning profit, so that can be passed on, but you can also put up rates for private companies (maybe those who dodge tax in conventional ways in particular, although I doubt how workable it would be to target them specifically) in order to subsidise discounts to government departments.

 

I mean this is just off the top of my head though.

[Rayvin 5176]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

But it isn't a massive amount in the overall scheme of things. At the moment there is a shared risk of losses with the rail companies. By nationalising the franchises the exchequer is assuming that full risk. Not to mention the fact that the government isn't great at handling these sort of endevours.

 

Do they ever make losses?

 

The government is far more able to control uptake of trains than private companies are anyway. They could increase road and domestic air tax and make rail options seem cheaper, thus also winning the battle on the environmentalist side of things, whilst at the same time encouraging uptake of the service.

[Renton 21294]

There is no real competition in rail though for most routes. I would only advocate privatisation where true competition can drive efficiencies, not for de facto monopolies. 

[ewerk 30259]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

Do they ever make losses?

 

The government is far more able to control uptake of trains than private companies are anyway. They could increase road and domestic air tax and make rail options seem cheaper, thus also winning the battle on the environmentalist side of things, whilst at the same time encouraging uptake of the service.

And at the same time discriminating against those of us who don't have easy access to train services?

[ewerk 30259]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

There is no real competition in rail though for most routes. I would only advocate privatisation where true competition can drive efficiencies, not for de facto monopolies. 

The competition happens during the tender process.

[Rayvin 5176]

Just now, ewerk said:

And at the same time discriminating against those of us who don't have easy access to train services?

 

Could be localised based on that.

 

Come on man, the government can more or less do whatever it wants with this stuff. London already imposes fees that the rest of the country doesn't have to suffer.

[Renton 21294]

Just now, ewerk said:

The competition happens during the tender process.

Yeah, but it hasn't worked has it? Failing train companies are always bailed out. It's a shit model.

[ewerk 30259]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

Yeah, but it hasn't worked has it? Failing train companies are always bailed out. It's a shit model.

And they share the profits with the government on successful lines. You win some, you lose some.

[Renton 21294]

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

And at the same time discriminating against those of us who don't have easy access to train services?

 

I hate this argument. It's like saying I'm fit and healthy so don't use the NHS, or I've no kids do don't want to fund schools. All public transport should be invested in and infrastructure improved. If you live in the country, then that's your choice. 

[ewerk 30259]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Could be localised based on that.

 

Come on man, the government can more or less do whatever it wants with this stuff. London already imposes fees that the rest of the country doesn't have to suffer.

You're talking about introducing a ridiculous postcode lottery on tax.