Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Hope on October 24, 2016, 06:31:14 PM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37749236
Thank God for the Walloons who have stood up to pressure to accept the terms of the Canadian European Trade Agreement, which, like its US/EU counterpart, has serious flaws and shortcomings. The US/EU (TTIP) agreement will potentially open the National Health Service and other core services to American takeovers and buy-outs, likely resulting in the development of an American-style insurance-based system here and elsewhere in the EU. Trade agreements like these have been being carried out largely in secret for 10+ years, and in the case of TTIP, the leaders of the EU have allowed the Americans to lay down controls as to its availability for scrutiny by all but the EU negotiators. As I understand it, TTIP can't come into existence without the existence of the CETA - so hopefully the stance taken by the Walloons will at the very least delay the former - long enough for sufficient opposition to be built up.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37749236
Thank God for the Walloons who have stood up to pressure to accept the terms of the Canadian European Trade Agreement, which, like its US/EU counterpart, has serious flaws and shortcomings. The US/EU (TTIP) agreement will potentially open the National Health Service and other core services to American takeovers and buy-outs, likely resulting in the development of an American-style insurance-based system here and elsewhere in the EU. Trade agreements like these have been being carried out largely in secret for 10+ years, and in the case of TTIP, the leaders of the EU have allowed the Americans to lay down controls as to its availability for scrutiny by all but the EU negotiators. As I understand it, TTIP can't come into existence without the existence of the CETA - so hopefully the stance taken by the Walloons will at the very least delay the former - long enough for sufficient opposition to be built up.
I'm not sure that I share your view of the potential negative effects of CETA, but what this fiasco does demonstrates is just how difficult it would be for the UK to get any kind of favourable post-Brexit trade agreement.
-
The US/EU (TTIP) agreement will potentially open the National Health Service and other core services to American takeovers and buy-outs, likely resulting in the development of an American-style insurance-based system here and elsewhere in the EU.
Perhaps you could explain why that might be a possibility. I can't envisage any way a trade deal could force us to abandon the NHS.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37749236
Thank God for the Walloons who have stood up to pressure to accept the terms of the Canadian European Trade Agreement, which, like its US/EU counterpart, has serious flaws and shortcomings. The US/EU (TTIP) agreement will potentially open the National Health Service and other core services to American takeovers and buy-outs, likely resulting in the development of an American-style insurance-based system here and elsewhere in the EU. Trade agreements like these have been being carried out largely in secret for 10+ years, and in the case of TTIP, the leaders of the EU have allowed the Americans to lay down controls as to its availability for scrutiny by all but the EU negotiators. As I understand it, TTIP can't come into existence without the existence of the CETA - so hopefully the stance taken by the Walloons will at the very least delay the former - long enough for sufficient opposition to be built up.
Don't forget that this was the kind of deal that Boris (and others) claimed would be a shining example of what the UK/EU relationship might be like post-Breixt.
In other words a deal that fails to materialise after a decade of negotiation.
The problem for the UK is that the cards are massively stacked in favour of the EU in the negotiations. It is much more important for the UK to get a deal than the EU so the latter can much more easily play hard ball. And, of course, any deal cannot be ratified unless all EU member states agree. So you only need one with a specific local issue that means they don't want to play ball for the deal not to materialise.
-
I hope neither agreement goes through too. It gives corporations far too much power which is really the last thing we want to do. It also lowers standards in things like food safety. More globalisation is bad. We need to be stepping back.
-
Don't forget that this was the kind of deal that Boris (and others) claimed would be a shining example of what the UK/EU relationship might be like post-Breixt.
In other words a deal that fails to materialise after a decade of negotiation.
The problem for the UK is that the cards are massively stacked in favour of the EU in the negotiations. It is much more important for the UK to get a deal than the EU so the latter can much more easily play hard ball. And, of course, any deal cannot be ratified unless all EU member states agree. So you only need one with a specific local issue that means they don't want to play ball for the deal not to materialise.
All that was completely obvious before the referendum, but we were constantly told "The Germans will still want to sell us cars".
Well, maybe they would, but when a single Belgian province can scupper a trade-deal I wouldn't hold my breath.
-
Dear Hope,
http://www.thenational.scot/news/trade-unions-and-charities-fight-lead-national-day-of-action-against-ttip.16653
http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/
http://www.waronwant.org/
I quite like this article,
http://www.waronwant.org/media/rush-oppose-ttip-%E2%80%93-and-what-it-means-ceta
And just like TTIP, CETA is also designed to prevent the renationalisation of public services, at a time when more and more people are beginning to recognise the myths of privatisation from its repeated failures.
The myths of privatisation from its repeated failures.
For me it all seems like some kind of race to the bottom, charging Joe public over the top prices for damaged or dodgy goods, greed and profit are king, what happened to making quality goods that last, is it just me, am I turning into a grumpy old man, where's the pride in giving your customer the best service possible.
In other news :P
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37755137
It will be a orange in wee Johnny's stocking instead of that train set he dreamed of.
Gonnagle.
-
For me it all seems like some kind of race to the bottom, charging Joe public over the top prices for damaged or dodgy goods, greed and profit are king, what happened to making quality goods that last, is it just me, am I turning into a grumpy old man, where's the pride in giving your customer the best service possible.
Hi Gonnagle,
I always think that people who lament the passing of our nationalised industries must either have very bad memories or have never experienced them - THEY WERE CRAP.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Am I lamenting days gone past? Maybe I am, things were better in the good old days ::) yes there is probably a lot of the grumpy old man syndrome at play :P but this rush we have to privatise has not worked, I am reminded of Matthew 6:24, you cannot serve two masters, either we are in charge, our needs are top of the agenda or the share holders are in charge.
Of course there is a third option, share holders realise that investment now will reap long term profits, short term greed versus long term profits, this is not rocket science, I am a lazy sod, I will always use a company or goods that gives me repeated value for money and great service, in fact I will always pay over the top prices if it means excellent service or goods.
Renationalisation of our rail and bus services, we can then hold government to account instead of some faceless company, of course government can say, well if you want a better service then you need to pay, for me I would see it as investing in the countries long term future, I would not watch as my money is squirreled away by some faceless fat cat, a simple fact of life, most people need to travel to work, and that should not be left to the whims of shareholders.
Gonnagle.
-
Renationalisation of our rail and bus services
I'm not saying it's a shining example now, but British Rail was utterly crap. Renationalisation is not the answer.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Renationalisation is not the answer.
Then what is?? Privatisation has not worked, services are provided on a profit scale, bus services are axed or rerouted due to profit, I will bet that near you there is a community who are up in arms over a companies decision to close a bus route.
Travel to and from work should not be a hardship, employers want all their employees to arrive at work happy and rested.
And please remember, this is 2016, we have learned, we are not at the whim of Unions, Maggie and her cronies have clipped their wings, and the fact that we can learn from past mistakes, we should forget the bad old days and move forward, renationalisation is not a step backwards, it is realising we have made a mistake, keeping the country running is part of government, if the citizen has trouble arriving for work or is late, then the country suffers.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Am I lamenting days gone past? Maybe I am, things were better in the good old days ::) yes there is probably a lot of the grumpy old man syndrome at play :P but this rush we have to privatise has not worked, I am reminded of Matthew 6:24, you cannot serve two masters, either we are in charge, our needs are top of the agenda or the share holders are in charge.
Of course there is a third option, share holders realise that investment now will reap long term profits, short term greed versus long term profits, this is not rocket science, I am a lazy sod, I will always use a company or goods that gives me repeated value for money and great service, in fact I will always pay over the top prices if it means excellent service or goods.
Renationalisation of our rail and bus services, we can then hold government to account instead of some faceless company, of course government can say, well if you want a better service then you need to pay, for me I would see it as investing in the countries long term future, I would not watch as my money is squirreled away by some faceless fat cat, a simple fact of life, most people need to travel to work, and that should not be left to the whims of shareholders.
Gonnagle.
I agree that there is plenty of room for improvement, but if you have choice, you have no one to blame but yourself if you are paying over the odds for a product whether it is a tin of beans or your gas/electric supplies.
I agree with Jeremy, British Rail was certainly no shining example and any attempts to re nationalise the railways would be a massive waste of public money - and would result in worse performance and an investment freeze.
There probably is a case for penalising some of these companies for poor performance, but much of the recent rail disruption for example, is a direct result of industrial action.
-
I agree that there is plenty of room for improvement, but if you have choice, you have no one to blame but yourself if you are paying over the odds for a product whether it is a tin of beans or your gas/electric supplies.
I agree with Jeremy, British Rail was certainly no shining example and any attempts to re nationalise the railways would be a massive waste of public money - and would result in worse performance and an investment freeze.
There probably is a case for penalising some of these companies for poor performance, but much of the recent rail disruption for example, is a direct result of industrial action.
there isn't an alternative supplier in nearly all cases. The idea that an individual has the power to affect prices for effective monopolies is laughable.
-
if you have choice,
But very often you don't if you are on a particular rail route. So competition in the true sense does not exist. You end up with a cartel.
-
Perhaps you could explain why that might be a possibility. I can't envisage any way a trade deal could force us to abandon the NHS.
I didn't say anything about abandoning the NHS, Jeremy. I said that TTIP will open just about everything to US businesses to buy up. And before you point out that this is just the Tory party at work, I'd point out that this is being negotiating by a largely Socialist EU bureaucracy.
-
there isn't an alternative supplier in nearly all cases. The idea that an individual has the power to affect prices for effective monopolies is laughable.
Have you got an example? We have a choice of suppliers for most services.
-
Have you got an example? We have a choice of suppliers for most services.
We are talking about train operators here. Most direct routes are effective monopolies
-
But very often you don't if you are on a particular rail route. So competition in the true sense does not exist. You end up with a cartel.
Maybe, but you don't have to travel by rail. There is bus, car, Uber or even flying in some cases.
-
Maybe, but you don't have to travel by rail. There is bus, car, Uber or even flying in some cases.
Goal posts taken down and moved to a pitch at the other end of the country.
You can't claim denationalization of the railways is a good thing because you have the alternative of air, car or bus. That's a rubbish argument.
-
I'm not saying it's a shining example now, but British Rail was utterly crap. Renationalisation is not the answer.
During the last few years of its existence, BR was actually improving - Robert Reid (the second) and John Welsby were addressing many of the ingrained problems. The privatisation model invented by John Major and friends was nothing more than a lawyers charter. It dismantled the vertical structure of BR and replaced it with innumerable contracts between infrastructure and operating and train ownership companies: operating companies hauled trains owned by someone else over tracks owned by yet a third company.
I think that one problem with the UK model of public ownership was its capital structure: nationalised companies were directly financed by the Treasury - incompetent ministers and civil servants had the direct opportunity to royally fuck-up the whole operation. Perhaps if nationalised companies were structured like joint stock companies and answerable to the government as their shareholder and management given operational responsibility to achieve objectives, they would have performed better.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Maybe, but you don't have to travel by rail. There is bus, car, Uber or even flying in some cases.
Or you could do what Dame Maggie asked and get on yer bike.
And no ( how many times in a day can a man be so wrong ) for some they only have one choice, they do not have the luxury of choice, not to worry old son, yer Tory thinking is a shining example to us all :-*
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Harrowby,
Nice post ;)
incompetent ministers and civil servants had the direct opportunity to royally fuck-up the whole operation.
Exactly, we have moved on, we can learn from past mistakes.
Gonnnagle.
-
We are talking about train operators here. Most direct routes are effective monopolies
To an extent that is true, but as I pointed out to Trentvoyager, rail travel has to compete with other forms of transport and they also have to compete with other rail companies when bidding for their contract.
Rail is quite an expensive form of transport so in common with most European countries, the industry receives subsidies from the government and the government controls prices for certain journeys. All that means that the price that a passenger pays for a particular journey may or may not reflect some of that subsidy.
I'll be the first to admit that the system is far from perfect, but I can't readily think of a better one - certainly not re-nationalisation.
-
Why is it that rail seems to work better on the Continent?
-
Dear Lapsed,
Or you could do what Dame Maggie asked and get on yer bike.
And no ( how many times in a day can a man be so wrong ) for some they only have one choice, they do not have the luxury of choice, not to worry old son, yer Tory thinking is a shining example to us all :-*
Gonnagle.
We all have choice Gonnagle - even deciding not to make a choice is a choice.
-
Why is it that rail seems to work better on the Continent?
Long term planning. Investment. Not buggering around with things too much. Stuff like that.
-
Why is it that rail seems to work better on the Continent?
I'm pretty sure that it is purely down to the level of government subsidies that the industry receives.
-
I'm pretty sure that it is purely down to the level of government subsidies that the industry receives.
which then surely makes a mockery of the idea of market forces that you want to champion.
-
Dear Lapsed, ( who luv's ya baby, I do :-* )
I'll be the first to admit that the system is far from perfect
Understatement of the week, people up and down this little island of ours are paying over the top prices and not receiving the goods, and yes in part that could be because of industrial action, peoples lives and jobs are at risk, I would rather blame government than some fat cat who is only looking at keeping his shareholders happy.
But then, I do blame government, a Tory government hell bent on little government.
Gonnagle.
-
which then surely makes a mockery of the idea of market forces that you want to champion.
Why would that be?
Obviously if a government decide to subsidise a commodity that will influence the price. When this happens there are often unintended consequences which is why most sensible government try to avoid such interventions, but that doesn't undermine any of the fundamentals of economics.
-
Why would that be?
Obviously if a government decide to subsidise a commodity that will influence the price. When this happens there are often unintended consequences which is why most sensible government try to avoid such interventions, but that doesn't undermine any of the fundamentals of economics.
Except the higher level of subsidy seems to have a much better level of service as well as cheaper prices.
As ever the idea that economics works like a science is based on a fallacious assumption of a perfect market that does not and cannot exist
-
Except the higher level of subsidy seems to have a much better level of service as well as cheaper prices.
If cheap rail travel were considered to a national priority, you might think that the price was worth paying - but every pound spent on rail subsidies is a pound that will not be available for the NHS (for example) - Or you could just increase taxation.
Also, if you artificially reduce the cost of rail travel enough, you will cause closures and redundancies in other transport industries.
As ever the idea that economics works like a science is based on a fallacious assumption of a perfect market that does not and cannot exist
Do you fail to understand through embedded dogma or pure ignorance?
-
Do you fail to understand through embedded dogma or pure ignorance?
Explain how economics can have fundamentals if it is based on assumption of something that cannot exist I.e. a perfect market, and try not to deflect with insult.
-
Also, if you artificially reduce the cost of rail travel enough, you will cause closures and redundancies in other transport industries.
Such as?
Other subsidised transport systems such as buses? Or aircraft?
Or might people - usually unable to calculate the real cost of private motoring - leave their personal mobile tin boxes at home?
In each case the major change is a reduction in pollution.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Can you forget the pound, shilling and pence aspect and look at the bigger picture, this country needs ( needs ) to travel to work, we rely heavily on bus and rail, it is a basic, the country would grind to a standstill without them, the countless millions who have escaped the big city but need to travel to the big cities rely heavily on bus and rail, without them we are fracked, of course we all could travel by car, that would be nice :o but then there are some who are ineligible for car ownership.
The country needs a safe, affordable and above all reliable means to go about their daily business, do you think that should be left to private investors, private investors who only answer to shareholders, they certainly do not answer to their customers,
http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/20/chaotic-scenes-at-brighton-station-after-it-closes-due-to-southern-rail-delays-6019195/
https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2016/aug/25/businesses-cost-southern-rail-cancelled-meetings
Tip of the iceberg old son, this is happening up and down the country and you certainly can't blame it all on industrial action.
It is time for this government to act, to forget the deficit and concentrate on keeping this country moving.
Renationalise our transport, invest heavily and it will reward us in future times.
Gonnagle.
-
Explain how economics can have fundamentals if it is based on assumption of something that cannot exist I.e. a perfect market, and try not to deflect with insult.
I feel as if I am discussing evolution with a Creationist NS. Opinions set in stone are not going to change - and life is too short to even try.
-
I feel as if I am discussing evolution with a Creationist NS. Opinions set in stone are not going to change - and life is too short to even try.
So that would he a no to being able to explain, and a no to not using insults for your not explaining.
-
Dear Lapsed,
I feel as if I am discussing evolution with a Creationist NS. Opinions set in stone are not going to change - and life is too short to even try.
Is that your way of saying, once a Tory always a Tory :P
I was once a Tory, hell! I helped vote Maggie in, but I am now cured, can you be a Tory and a Christian??? :o
Gonnagle.
-
So that would he a no to being able to explain, and a no to not using insults for your not explaining.
If you are genuinely interested in the subject (which I suspect you're not) you will find plenty of good books and online articles. I believe there are also free online courses.
I do not however, intend to waste any more of my time.
-
If you are genuinely interested in the subject (which I suspect you're not) you will find plenty of good books and online articles. I believe there are also free online courses.
I do not however, intend to waste any more of my time.
your attempt at being patronising would be more successful, had you been able to deal with the questions asked rather than evade and insult.
-
I hope neither agreement goes through too. It gives corporations far too much power which is really the last thing we want to do. It also lowers standards in things like food safety. More globalisation is bad. We need to be stepping back.
I agree.
-
Hi Gonnagle,
I always think that people who lament the passing of our nationalised industries must either have very bad memories or have never experienced them - THEY WERE CRAP.
That may or not be true but what we have now is crap and getting crappier. And they are unaccountable and unelected.
-
I'm not saying it's a shining example now, but British Rail was utterly crap. Renationalisation is not the answer.
And how was it crap?
-
I agree that there is plenty of room for improvement, but if you have choice, you have no one to blame but yourself if you are paying over the odds for a product whether it is a tin of beans or your gas/electric supplies.
I agree with Jeremy, British Rail was certainly no shining example and any attempts to re nationalise the railways would be a massive waste of public money - and would result in worse performance and an investment freeze.
There probably is a case for penalising some of these companies for poor performance, but much of the recent rail disruption for example, is a direct result of industrial action.
Choice? ? ? What a load of bollocks!!!
-
Choice? ? ? What a load of bollocks!!!
I'm going to lie down now. Jack Knave and I are of one accord.
-
But then, I do blame government, a Tory government hell bent on little government.
But Gonners, the same problem has also existed under Labour governments 'bent on big government'.
-
Dear Hope,
First of all it is not big government, it is just government, taking responsibility for how our country is run, not selling off the problem to a private investor and hoping that they will solve the problem.
I am actually trying to think of a successful sell off, BT probably, but successful for who or is that whom, the Post Office ( can we still call it Royal Mail ) was actually starting to show profit before we sold it, but this government said nah!! not our problem anymore but we have yet to see if and when they decide that sending post/goods to the Utter Hebrides remains profitable, cost cutting is a private investors dream, no thought for the customer.
But your wee post sent me on a nostalgic voyage, we have not had a Labour government since 1979, thirty odd years of Tory or Torylite government, Callaghan was our last real Labour Prime Minister but the Unions did for that man and then along came Maggie :o :(
So back to your OP, do we allow small government to continue, do we say yes to TTIP or CETA, do we enable big business to hold our government to ransom, and lest we forget, TTIP and CETA are EU pipe dreams and is Jack Knave blowing raspberries from the side line and shouting "told ye so" is there actually a silver lining to Brexit, I honestly don't know, it is all a very confusing mess, a very confusing Tory mess.
Gonnagle.
-
I'm just waiting to see how this will be the example that shows the EU can break it's own rules and override the veto of one of its members.......
Maybe Jack can guide us through the process?
-
I'm just waiting to see how this will be the example that shows the EU can break it's own rules and override the veto of one of its members.......
Maybe Jack can guide us through the process?
That was a few years ago when both Ireland and France were ordered to rerun their referendums on the Lisbon Treaty!!
-
Looks like the Belgians have found themselves some fudge.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37788882
-
That was a few years ago when both Ireland and France were ordered to rerun their referendums on the Lisbon Treaty!!
Who ordered them?
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Then what is?? Privatisation has not worked,
Has it not? Obviously there are high profile failures like Southern Rail, but as a rule train services are vastly better than when they were nationalised.
services are provided on a profit scale, bus services are axed or rerouted due to profit, I will bet that near you there is a community who are up in arms over a companies decision to close a bus route.
I'm blessed to be living in an area with very good bus services. I accept there are areas where it is practically impossible to turn a profit and in those areas, the government should step in to help. But that does not mean blanket renationalisation is the right thing.
-
I didn't say anything about abandoning the NHS, Jeremy. I said that TTIP will open just about everything to US businesses to buy up. And before you point out that this is just the Tory party at work, I'd point out that this is being negotiating by a largely Socialist EU bureaucracy.
How is a US company going to buy up the NHS and institute a health insurance system like the US unless the government abandons it?
-
Goal posts taken down and moved to a pitch at the other end of the country.
No.
The railways are competing with cars and buses and planes.
You can't claim denationalization of the railways is a good thing because you have the alternative of air, car or bus. That's a rubbish argument.
Nobody is. The cars and buses and planes comment is in response to the claim that the railways are a monopoly.
-
Explain how economics can have fundamentals if it is based on assumption of something that cannot exist I.e. a perfect market, and try not to deflect with insult.
Who says economics is based on a perfect market? Economists recognise that as a model of the spherical cow in a vacuum type.
I'm also not sure why you think it is relevant here.
-
Who says economics is based on a perfect market? Economists recognise that as a model of the spherical cow in a vacuum type.
I'm also not sure why you think it is relevant here.
so explain how it is a science? And the assumption of a perfect market is implicit in LA's position that consumers have knowledge of all prices. Care to tell me about how people understand freight pricing?
-
so explain how it is a science?
Why?
And the assumption of a perfect market is implicit in LA's position that consumers have knowledge of all prices.
I must have missed that, where did he make that claim?
Care to tell me about how people understand freight pricing?
Well I don't know about freight pricing. I imagine you look it up on the Internet or ring up the companies.
However, I do know about human travel. Let's say I need to travel from my house in the South East to Newcastle where my company's biggest customer is based. I can easily get price information for car, train and aeroplane which are the three practical competing means of transport to get me there. Then I factor in the time it takes to get there by each means (which has a cost because my time is not free) and it usually turns out that the plane is the cheapest means of getting there, mainly because I live conveniently close to Heathrow.
There you are, the train company (two train companies actually, because I have two alternative routes) are in competition with car and plane and they lose.
-
How is a US company going to buy up the NHS and institute a health insurance system like the US unless the government abandons it?
My understanding (which may be wrong) is that the TTIP model favours private enterprise over public (governmental) ownership and governments will have fewer powers to intervene over private enterprise initiatives.
-
Privatisation has not worked,
Has it not? Obviously there are high profile failures like Southern Rail, but as a rule train services are vastly better than when they were nationalised.
The problem with the "privatisation" of the railways is that it was botched. The model chosen was to fragment the system so that no single company was providing all the service.
The companies which charge the customer for service (and have their names on the trains) were not to own the trains but to lease them from a rolling stock company. A separate company owned and maintained the track so the train operating company paid for access to the track along which it could haul someone else's coaches.
And all the time there is an "independent" regulator overseeing what was happening. No single company had total responsibility for the operation. It was really "franchising" rather than "privatisation". One of the most prestigious of the franchises - the East Coast Main Line - has seen failure after failure of train operator.
The whole thing was held together by a mass of contracts.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Has it not? Obviously there are high profile failures like Southern Rail, but as a rule train services are vastly better than when they were nationalised.
Well I will just have to take your word for it, but, always a but.
http://actionforrail.org/the-four-big-myths-of-uk-rail-privatisation/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-railways-doing-well-despite-privatisation-a6843966.html
https://weownit.org.uk/evidence/why-railways-should-be-public-ownership
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/15/nostalgia-british-rail-trains-better
So I suppose it all depends on who you believe but for me there is something immoral in a private company being heavily subsidised, giving its shareholders huge dividends and at the same time Joe Public is paying over the top prices, Joe public is being charged twice to ride on the trains :o
I'm blessed to be living in an area with very good bus services. I accept there are areas where it is practically impossible to turn a profit and in those areas, the government should step in to help. But that does not mean blanket renationalisation is the right thing.
Fair enough, but private investors should not be allowed to play with peoples life's, if a small village has enjoyed a reliable bus or train service and suddenly they are told that service is no longer economically viable, should they up sticks and move to where you live, our transport system is a basic requirement, it keeps the country running.
Maybe not a blanket renationalisation, but definitely a rethink on who is most important, shareholders or customers.
Gonnagle.
-
I'm just waiting to see how this will be the example that shows the EU can break it's own rules and override the veto of one of its members.......
Maybe Jack can guide us through the process?
No need the Walloons have had a gun put to their heads and been made an offer they can't refuse. See I told you the EU will always find a way round to breaking their own rules, it may not be obvious and transparent that they have done that but it's what they do.
-
No need the Walloons have had a gun put to their heads and been made an offer they can't refuse. See I told you the EU will always find a way round to breaking their own rules, it may not be obvious and transparent that they have done that but it's what they do.
What was the offer?
-
However, I do know about human travel. Let's say I need to travel from my house in the South East to Newcastle where my company's biggest customer is based. I can easily get price information for car, train and aeroplane which are the three practical competing means of transport to get me there. Then I factor in the time it takes to get there by each means (which has a cost because my time is not free) and it usually turns out that the plane is the cheapest means of getting there, mainly because I live conveniently close to Heathrow.
There you are, the train company (two train companies actually, because I have two alternative routes) are in competition with car and plane and they lose.
But try flying from the West of the UK to the East and it becomes nigh on impossible. Using the same three forms of transport, getting from Cardiff to Ipswich by train takes about 4 and a quarter hours; by car takes anything up to 7 hours depending on the route and the day of the week; flying would take me - literally - for ever as there are no flights joining the two places, and I've never even found any combinations of flights that would - though I suppose that if I spent enough time dredging through expedia and other such sites I might find one that takes me via this and that European city en route.
Often, train is the only realistic option, and it isn't that bad. Cardiff to Ipswich return, booked in advance, is £78.60 for me.
-
My understanding (which may be wrong) is that the TTIP model favours private enterprise over public (governmental) ownership and governments will have fewer powers to intervene over private enterprise initiatives.
That still doesn't answer the question.
-
Fair enough, but private investors should not be allowed to play with peoples life's,
That would rule out private enterprise doing anything at all.
if a small village has enjoyed a reliable bus or train service and suddenly they are told that service is no longer economically viable, should they up sticks and move to where you live, our transport system is a basic requirement, it keeps the country running.
I think you'll find, in my previous post, I did say that the government should step in in such cases.
Maybe not a blanket renationalisation,
Yes. What I object to is the idea that because the system isn't perfect, we need to completely replace it with another system that also isn't perfect. Renationalising the whole railway system just because some bits of it are failing is absurd - as was privatising the whole rail system just because many bits of it were failing, but we can't undo that now.
but definitely a rethink on who is most important, shareholders or customers.
Most of us are both shareholders and customers.
-
But try flying from the West of the UK to the East and it becomes nigh on impossible.
You mean it becomes uncompetitive with rail and road transport.
Using the same three forms of transport, getting from Cardiff to Ipswich by train takes about 4 and a quarter hours; by car takes anything up to 7 hours depending on the route and the day of the week;
It's a four hour drive from Cardiff to Ipswich, whereas any train today (Saturday) would take at least six hours.
flying would take me - literally - for ever as there are no flights joining the two places, and I've never even found any combinations of flights that would - though I suppose that if I spent enough time dredging through expedia and other such sites I might find one that takes me via this and that European city en route.
You could fly to London City Airport inn hour and 15 minutes and for less than £50. That gives you two hours to get from there to Liverpool Street and thence to Ipswich to beat the car time. Of course, there are only two flights per day, so you'd have to time it.
Often, train is the only realistic option, and it isn't that bad. Cardiff to Ipswich return, booked in advance, is £78.60 for me.
By realistic, you mean competitive and that is the way it should be.
-
You mean it becomes uncompetitive with rail and road transport.
It's a four hour drive from Cardiff to Ipswich, whereas any train today (Saturday) would take at least six hours.
You could fly to London City Airport inn hour and 15 minutes and for less than £50. That gives you two hours to get from there to Liverpool Street and thence to Ipswich to beat the car time. Of course, there are only two flights per day, so you'd have to time it.
By realistic, you mean competitive and that is the way it should be.
No, I don't mean competitive, jp. I mean practical. There are a variety of flights from Cardiff to London which would allow me to get to Liverpool Street in order to get a train to Ipswich (there being no flights to Ipswich from any of London's airports). There are also flights from London airports to Cardiff that I could catch a train from Ipswich for - but the timings between the out and return trips would not allow me to attend much of the board meeting I'm going to Ipswich for.
-
You mean it becomes uncompetitive with rail and road transport.
It's a four hour drive from Cardiff to Ipswich, whereas any train today (Saturday) would take at least six hours.
You'd be hard pressed to drive from Cardiff to Ipswich in 4 hours on most days and at most times of day. And I should know as I live pretty well smack on that route (in St Albans) and regularly drive to Cardiff and do the Ipswich trip a couple of times a year. So yesterday afternoon my wife drove back to St Albans from Cardiff and just that bit took over 4 hours - sure traffic was pretty bad but nothing massively out of the ordinary.
You could fly to London City Airport inn hour and 15 minutes and for less than £50. That gives you two hours to get from there to Liverpool Street and thence to Ipswich to beat the car time. Of course, there are only two flights per day, so you'd have to time it.
By realistic, you mean competitive and that is the way it should be.
Completely unrealistic - first you have to factor in the time and cost of getting to the airport in Cardiff. Secondly the amount of time before the flight you need to be there (realistically at least 1 hour to be sure of getting through security etc). Given that the train (which goes from central Cardiff) takes just 2 hours to Paddington) the flight will take longer from front door to London, unless you happen to live right next to Cardiff airport.
But more significant is the problems if your flight is delayed or cancelled, which leaves you without a viable alternative option.
I can't image anyone with any real sense would conclude that flying to London and then getting a train to Ipswich was a viable option.
-
It's a four hour drive from Cardiff to Ipswich, whereas any train today (Saturday) would take at least six hours.
The shortest time I've managed to travel between the two centres by car is 6 hours, jp, whilst I have regularly done the same trip by train in 4 1/4 hours - and on a Saturday at that. (Cardiff - London 05:55 - 08:10; London - Ipswich 09.00 - 10:07). I notice that under the new timetables, the 05:55 from Cardiff is no longer - but that doesn't matter any longer as I now travel over on the Friday before board meetings and back on the Saturday.
You could fly to London City Airport inn hour and 15 minutes and for less than £50. That gives you two hours to get from there to Liverpool Street and thence to Ipswich to beat the car time. Of course, there are only two flights per day, so you'd have to time it.
By realistic, you mean competitive and that is the way it should be.
It costs me £75 for a return to Ipswich from my home near Cardiff. So, not only are journeys including flights impractical, they are more expensive.
-
My understanding (which may be wrong) is that the TTIP model favours private enterprise over public (governmental) ownership and governments will have fewer powers to intervene over private enterprise initiatives.
An exert from this site indicates the concern you mention : http://www.atlantic-community.org/-/ttip-top-5-concerns-and-criticism
"Arguably the most concerning aspect of TTIP for many critics is the so-called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism which is likely to be built into the agreement. This mechanism gives companies the capacity to take legal action against states which they perceive are hindering potential profits. "
-
What was the offer?
Not to pull the trigger!
-
Not to pull the trigger!
No, really, what was the offer?
-
No, I don't mean competitive, jp.
That's only because you refuse to understand the point.
I mean practical. There are a variety of flights from Cardiff to London which would allow me to get to Liverpool Street in order to get a train to Ipswich (there being no flights to Ipswich from any of London's airports). There are also flights from London airports to Cardiff that I could catch a train from Ipswich for - but the timings between the out and return trips would not allow me to attend much of the board meeting I'm going to Ipswich for.
And there's also travelling by car or coach. So there is competition for the train, but for you, the train is the most cost effective.
-
You'd be hard pressed to drive from Cardiff to Ipswich in 4 hours on most days
No you wouldn't. It was actually closer to three and a half hours according to my Sat Nav and I rounded it up to four. I'll give you five if it makes you happier. Of course, that takes you from anywhere in the vicinity of Cardiff to anywhere in the vicinity of Ipswich whereas the train time I looked up (best time on a Saturday is over 6 hours) doesn't take into account that you have to get to Cardiff station and you have to get from Ipswich station to your destination.
I can't image anyone with any real sense would conclude that flying to London and then getting a train to Ipswich was a viable option.
Well it is as it turns out (much to my surprise when I looked it up).
But anyway, all this quibbling about how long it would take to get from A to B by various modes of transport is beside the point. The point is that there are alternatives to the train. The train companies are not operating in a monopoly situation.
-
No, really, what was the offer?
No, really, that was the offer.
-
No, really, that was the offer.
Was it minuted at a meeting or is that just another one of your fantasy assertions?
-
No you wouldn't. It was actually closer to three and a half hours according to my Sat Nav and I rounded it up to four. I'll give you five if it makes you happier. Of course, that takes you from anywhere in the vicinity of Cardiff to anywhere in the vicinity of Ipswich whereas the train time I looked up (best time on a Saturday is over 6 hours) doesn't take into account that you have to get to Cardiff station and you have to get from Ipswich station to your destination.
Sorry, jp, using Google Maps and putting my home address and my destination address in Ipswich in, it reckons 4hrs 8 mins via the M4 (or 3hrs 51 mins with no traffic). Well, we know that there is rarely no traffic on that route - especially at the times I would ned to be travelling Using the A40, it takes 4hrs 20mins. As I said, I used to catch the train at 05:25 train a five minute walk from my house, and arrive in Ipswich at 10:07 - with a five minute bus or car drive at the other end.so, just under 5 hours door to door. Cost-wise, the car fuel, etc. was much of a muchness with the train and bus (on an open return) but on the functionality at a meeting score, the train wins hands down.
The train companies are not operating in a monopoly situation.
But the various considerations around which a choice is made put the train considerably ahead of any of the others.
-
The point is that there are alternatives to the train. The train companies are not operating in a monopoly situation.
Depends where you are and what journey.
I commute into London every day and there is no viable alternative to the train - and indeed to a single train company.
I can't drive because there is no parking at my work and nearby it is all residents only parking.
There is no bus service that is usable - I've just checked and the fastest service is scheduled to take 2hr 40min - the train takes 20 minutes.
A taxi would be prohibitively expensive.
And on the train there is only one route that is really viable - my journey on that route (door to door including my cycle across London) takes 1 hour on a good day. The alternative route (also the same train operating company) would take nearly twice that.
So my train operating company (Thameslink) does have an effective monopoly on commuters commuting into central London.
-
Sorry, jp, using Google Maps and putting my home address and my destination address in Ipswich in, it reckons 4hrs 8 mins via the M4 (or 3hrs 51 mins with no traffic).
I said I'd give you five hours.
Using the A40, it takes 4hrs 20mins.
Why would you use the A40? It's M4, M25, A12.
As I said, I used to catch the train at 05:25 train a five minute walk from my house, and arrive in Ipswich at 10:07 - with a five minute bus or car drive at the other end.so, just under 5 hours door to door.
As I said, putting the journey into National Rail at the time on Saturday when I posted got a minimum of a 6 hour journey.
Cost-wise, the car fuel, etc. was much of a muchness with the train and bus (on an open return) but on the functionality at a meeting score, the train wins hands down.
You mean it does for you living only five minutes from the station and going somewhere that is only five minutes from a station and setting out at an ungodly hour. And that's fine but it does not alter the point that there are viable alternatives and these might be better for other people in different circumstances.
-
I said I'd give you five hours.
Which is about right, given that in numerous Cardiff - St Albans (smack on that M4, M25, A12 route) trips I haven't achieved less than 3 hours any time this year I think. And St Albans to Ipswich is about 1.5 hours.
Why would you use the A40? It's M4, M25, A12.
Indeed - see above.
As I said, putting the journey into National Rail at the time on Saturday when I posted got a minimum of a 6 hour journey.
Sure, but that is very unusual and due to engineering works on the Cardiff-London stretch o Saturday. The normal week-day schedule is just over 4 hours and that is allowing, to my mind, excessive time to get from Paddington to Liverpool St, which is just a single tube.
You mean it does for you living only five minutes from the station and going somewhere that is only five minutes from a station and setting out at an ungodly hour. And that's fine but it does not alter the point that there are viable alternatives and these might be better for other people in different circumstances.
Sure, driving may be a better option in some circumstance, the train in others - a flight isn't a viable option though.
I note no response to my post about my commute, where there is no viable option for me other than the train.
-
Was it minuted at a meeting or is that just another one of your fantasy assertions?
You think the EU minute their meetings, that is the ones that really affect things? ::)
-
You think the EU minute their meetings, that is the ones that really affect things? ::)
Ah, so one of your fantasy bletherings then. One of which can neither be proved or disproved. How convenient.
-
Ah, so one of your fantasy bletherings then. One of which can neither be proved or disproved. How convenient.
So you can furnish me with all the minutes to the Commission's and Council's meetings then?
-
So you can furnish me with all the minutes to the Commission's and Council's meetings then?
Even if I did, you would claim that they were doctored if they didn’t say that you wanted them to say.
-
Even if I did, you would claim that they were doctored if they didn’t say that you wanted them to say.
Big IF
-
Big IF
Still true though.
-
Still true though.
Straw man to try to avoid the challenge. Avoidance noted.
-
So you can furnish me with all the minutes to the Commission's and Council's meetings then?
You want all the minutes to all the meetings?
-
You want all the minutes to all the meetings?
Just get me some of them, a hand full.