http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26909713
QuoteEast Coast Line: RMT in legal battle over franchise
Rail unions have launched a legal battle over the way the government is proceeding with three rail franchises.
They want a judicial review into the reprivatisation of the East Coast line, and the extensions to the Thameslink and Great Northern awards.
The RMT, Aslef, and TSSA say members' jobs and conditions, and the interests of the wider public, are at risk because of the lack of consultation.
The Department for Transport said it would "vigorously defend" the claim.
'Ideologically driven'
The three unions are seeking a judicial review, as they believe the Coalition government is rushing through the privatisation of the East Coast line before the 2015 General Election.
The franchise is due to start in February 2015 and is expected to run for a maximum of 11 years.
FirstGroup has been shortlisted to run the franchise, along with a joint bid from Eurostar and French firm Keolis, and another from Virgin and Stagecoach.
But union officials say that ministers have "cut corners" and have not carried out a proper consultation with themselves or passenger groups.
"The British public have a right to openness and transparency when it comes to the ideologically driven attempt to sell off Britain's most successful rail-route to the speculators and chancers after two previous private sector failures on the same line," said RMT acting general secretary Mick Cash.
A Department for Transport spokeswoman said: "We will vigorously defend this claim and remain committed to the franchising programme. As these legal proceedings are ongoing it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage."
The line has been publicly run since 2009 - by Directly Operated Railways, an arms-length company overseen by the Department for Transport - after National Express handed back the franchise amid financial problems.
It meant that two successive operators had failed to make the line - which runs between London and Edinburgh, with connected services to Inverness and Aberdeen - commercially viable, and its improved performance in recent years has come under public ownership.
'Invest and innovate'
In October, as part of the franchising process, the government released data which suggested total passenger journeys on the line had increased by a million to 19.1 million under public ownership while revenue had risen by 11% to £692m.
The government has previously said the line has now been "stabilised" and they want to "rekindle the spirit of competition".
And in January rail minister Stephen Hammond said: "Giving passengers more will be at the heart of the new East Coast franchise.
"For our railways to continue to grow we need strong private sector partners who can invest and innovate in ways that deliver a world class service."
I'm watching this one with interest. Failing to renationalise the railways was one of the big fuck-ups of Labour's time in power. It really does seem the government is racing to sell it off before the next election for ideological reasons (like so much of what they're getting up to).
I have travelled the forever-state owned Hungarian railways. And I have travelled the evilcapitalist British railways.
My conclusion: you are crazy.
I'm not an expert, but from everything I've heard the privatization of the railways in the UK has seriously degraded service, quality, and security all over the board.
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 05:43:13 AM
I have travelled the forever-state owned Hungarian railways. And I have travelled the evilcapitalist British railways.
My conclusion: you are crazy.
A wild claim would be that you'd also prefer state owned British railways over privately owned Hungarian railways. Because, you're not crazy.
Quote from: Syt on April 07, 2014, 05:52:41 AM
I'm not an expert, but from everything I've heard the privatization of the railways in the UK has seriously degraded service, quality, and security all over the board.
That's because people have forgotten how bad it was when it was nationalised.
Not to say that the privatisation wasn't done in a mind-boggling inept manner.
Quote from: Syt on April 07, 2014, 05:52:41 AM
I'm not an expert, but from everything I've heard the privatization of the railways in the UK has seriously degraded service, quality, and security all over the board.
Also privatisation was done to regional monopolies who still receive enormous subsidies from the state :bleeding:
I'm not desperately attached to nationalisation but I think we definitely need a reorganisation/rationalisation of the privatised services. Especially because trains matter a lot more to our economy than they used to. There are more journeys and more passengers, more commuters, more people using them for tourism than ever before and they're not as well run as they could, there's not enough competition to get any benefit from privatisation and there's not been enough investment in infrastructure.
Also I think regional models like TFL for, say, Liverpool and Manchester or West Yorkshire round Leeds could help with growth there. Especially in Liverpool and Manchester, which both have decent councils and leadership at last.
Privatised railways can work very well when they're done properly, such as in Japan, with true privately owned and ran railways.
But that ship sailed long ago in the UK with the initial consolodations and nationalisations, now it would be utterly criminal to sell off our railways to private companies, and there isn't really any room for new private railways to develop. Instead you have the government taking care of all the expensive parts of operating our railways but letting the profits go into the hands of private companies.
Particularly annoying is this stupid ideological rant that privatised railways somehow leads to competition magically creating better services- despite the fact that by design most routes are only served by one company :bleeding:
We really should renationalise the railways, the East Coast example dispels the myth that nationalised automatically equals bad.
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 05:43:13 AM
I have travelled the forever-state owned Hungarian railways. And I have travelled the evilcapitalist British railways.
My conclusion: you are crazy.
I think the bigger factor is British vs Hungarian in this case.
Train tickets are very expensive but I seem to be getting a very good service in exchange. Frequent trains, which are not in a run-down state, decent information system, stations and trains secured by CCTV etc.
I challenge you Brits to travel around a bit on the Hungarian railways. Would appreciate what you have far more.
But of course if the current system costs too much it should be rationalized. But the idea that fully nationalising something will help make the economics more rational is very laughable. Even in a subsidized private setup, at the end of the day, even after most of the subsidy stolen via creative bookkeeping, you have owners who want profits and whose budget has limits.
There is no greater tool for corruption than a gargantuan state-run enterprise such as railways, since a huge amount of money goes around to a myriad of big and small things, and with the unlimited source of the state budget behind it, there is no limit to what can be stolen.
We'll, I've travelled on a private busses in Madagascar, and the service was vastly inferior to the public busses I've travelled on in Europe.
Should we conclude that public is better than private when it comes to bus services?
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 06:20:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 05:43:13 AM
I have travelled the forever-state owned Hungarian railways. And I have travelled the evilcapitalist British railways.
My conclusion: you are crazy.
I think the bigger factor is British vs Hungarian in this case.
It is a factor for sure, but I am willing to wager that people born in the UK are not genetically more angel-like than Hungarians, they merely have preferred more sensible, and long-term viable systems.
The thing is, with state owned stuff, there is always the danger of descending into what Hungary and other eastern countries have made of them. The only thing stopping that from happening is that actors keep being sensible in the amount they abuse the system. And by actors I mean everyone, from the state-appointed director to the local repairmen at the Bumfuckshire Depot.
That's quite a risk to take, for no proven advantage.
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 06:23:24 AM
We'll, I've travelled on a private busses in Madagascar, and the service was vastly inferior to the public busses I've travelled on in Europe.
Should we conclude that public is better than private when it comes to bus services?
We can conclude that probably cheaper is worse than more expensive.
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 06:24:21 AM
It is a factor for sure, but I am willing to wager that people born in the UK are not genetically more angel-like than Hungarians, they merely have preferred more sensible, and long-term viable systems.
The thing is, with state owned stuff, there is always the danger of descending into what Hungary and other eastern countries have made of them. The only thing stopping that from happening is that actors keep being sensible in the amount they abuse the system. And by actors I mean everyone, from the state-appointed director to the local repairmen at the Bumfuckshire Depot.
That's quite a risk to take, for no proven advantage.
I can see how your experiences in Hungary have made you suspicious of public endeavours, but I don't buy your slippery slope; and I don't think the Hungarian experience is a good baseline for judging human nature and political culture across the world.
I definitely agree that totalitarian regimes are prone to clientism and corruption, and the transition to freer societies can definitely be botched. But as the oligarchs of Russia have proved, it's not public or private that makes the difference, it's the social acceptance of corruption.
I mean, do you really believe that if Orban went and privatized the railways and other currently public institutions that it would not be an orgy of kickbacks and plundering the assets of the state for the benefit of a select few? And would Orban's cronies running the show make for better service?
The main modern British experience of national rail is France or Germany. It's misleading but it ain't awful.
The Danish National Railways are state owned, and are pretty decent and corruption free. Both Canada and Denmark have numerous examples of well functioning state-run enterprises and bodies that are not the locus of clientism and corruption, and are not treated as piggy banks to be raided by well-connected oligarchs.
I don't expect that it's a genetic difference; perhaps it is one of political and public culture? In any case, I don't think it's reasonable to apply the lessons from the apparent clusterfucks in Hungary to well functioning modern states.
The whole privatisation setup of the railways has become a joke, with essentially the UK government either subsidising privately run companies which end up in the pockets of shareholders as dividends, or foreign state run companies, essentially a transfer of funds from the British to the French & German governments.
Essentially, either make it 100% funded, or convert them into not for profit entities, run at arms length to the government, like Network Rail (which is probably the best part of the system, as they have done decent upgrades to the network over the last 10-15 years).
Quote from: PJL on April 07, 2014, 06:59:38 AM
The whole privatisation setup of the railways has become a joke, with essentially the UK government either subsidising privately run companies which end up in the pockets of shareholders as dividends, or foreign state run companies, essentially a transfer of funds from the British to the French & German governments.
Essentially, either make it 100% funded, or convert them into not for profit entities, run at arms length to the government, like Network Rail (which is probably the best part of the system, as they have done decent upgrades to the network over the last 10-15 years).
That is the thing though. How do you handle upgrades and modernisations in a non-profit environment? In other words, where is the "this is not profit" line is drawn? All these things are very arbitrary and a hotbed of inefficiency and corruption.
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 05:43:13 AM
I have travelled the forever-state owned Hungarian railways.
I'm shocked the trains and track haven't been stolen yet.
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 06:41:26 AM
I can see how your experiences in Hungary have made you suspicious of public endeavours, but I don't buy your slippery slope; and I don't think the Hungarian experience is a good baseline for judging human nature and political culture across the world.
I am not sure the Danish or Canadian one is either though. Every statistic suggests they are a big outlier.
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 06:50:08 AM
The Danish National Railways are state owned, and are pretty decent and corruption free. Both Canada and Denmark have numerous examples of well functioning state-run enterprises and bodies that are not the locus of clientism and corruption, and are not treated as piggy banks to be raided by well-connected oligarchs.
I don't expect that it's a genetic difference; perhaps it is one of political and public culture? In any case, I don't think it's reasonable to apply the lessons from the apparent clusterfucks in Hungary to well functioning modern states.
Yes if the culture is not there, no matter what you do, there will be inefficiency and corruption. However, there is less of them if private actors are present, because in that case the financiers of the enterprise are interested in efficiency, and are operating with limited resources. Neither of those two things are true when you have a state owned enterprise.
And yes if the political culture is advanced enough then you might be able to operate them efficiently regardless, but worldwide that is a very tiny minority of countries. And if a given method has more danger of turning into an ineffective sink of money (as state ran enterprises have proved to be on countless occasions worldwide in the past 50 years and more), than the other, then why force it?
Now of course having something privately owned but heavily state-subsidised also runs the great risk of having the worst of both worlds, so it is certainly suspect.
But if I understand correctly, the reservation is that state money is given to private individuals to be disposed of at their leisure. Now, I ask you, how is that different from if the disposing-people were state employees? Nobody is made inherently more unselfish just because they work for the almighty State. That is, in general, a seriously flawed pretext.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 07:50:55 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 05:43:13 AM
I have travelled the forever-state owned Hungarian railways.
I'm shocked the trains and track haven't been stolen yet.
Gypsies specialized in scrap metal "scavenging" regularly destroy signal equipment and such when they "scavenge" the cabling. :lol:
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 07:59:08 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 07:50:55 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 05:43:13 AM
I have travelled the forever-state owned Hungarian railways.
I'm shocked the trains and track haven't been stolen yet.
Gypsies specialized in scrap metal "scavenging" regularly destroy signal equipment and such when they "scavenge" the cabling. :lol:
Oh, the white trash wreck houses here to get 50 bucks worth of copper. Pisses me off when it is a house my company is rehabbing to rent out.
:ultra:
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 07:58:14 AM
Yes if the culture is not there, no matter what you do, there will be inefficiency and corruption. However, there is less of them if private actors are present, because in that case the financiers of the enterprise are interested in efficiency, and are operating with limited resources. Neither of those two things are true when you have a state owned enterprise.
err...what?
Its the complete opposite.
Private enterprise is looking to wring as much money out of the government as they can. They make a point of being as inefficient as possible. Limited resoures and what is best for the big picture means nothing to them, they just want as big a slice of the possible resources as they can get.
With the government however you have awareness of the limited resources they're working with and efficiency and customer satisfaction is the only driving force.
Quote
But if I understand correctly, the reservation is that state money is given to private individuals to be disposed of at their leisure. Now, I ask you, how is that different from if the disposing-people were state employees? Nobody is made inherently more unselfish just because they work for the almighty State. That is, in general, a seriously flawed pretext.
You really think the minister of transport would see profits (which he isn't going to get a slice of) as his primary motivation?
As for the low level workers- it generally isn't going to affect their bottom line either way. Working for The Railways will however be much more of a motivator than working for generic railway company number 5 (who you are only guarantied to be with for a few years until the next round of franchise bidding)
Quote from: Tyr on April 07, 2014, 08:03:31 AM
With the government however you have awareness of the limited resources they're working with and efficiency and customer satisfaction is the only driving force.
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
I am sorry Tyr but that has to be the most naïve out-of-touch stuff I have read in a while.
Yes what you wrote about wringing out government money is true, but it is at least as much true for a 100% state-ran enterprise, probably more because they then have no real accountability. They just need to produce papers on those costs being necessary and they get their budget raised.
Well, that's obviously how it worked in the nationalized coal mines.
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 08:11:42 AM
Quote from: Tyr on April 07, 2014, 08:03:31 AM
With the government however you have awareness of the limited resources they're working with and efficiency and customer satisfaction is the only driving force.
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
I am sorry Tyr but that has to be the most naïve out-of-touch stuff I have read in a while.
Yes what you wrote about wringing out government money is true, but it is at least as much true for a 100% state-ran enterprise, probably more because they then have no real accountability. They just need to produce papers on those costs being necessary and they get their budget raised.
How?
Even if you assume they're not in politics to make the country a better place (which these days is most of them) they still want to get re-elected, and making the trains run on time is a way to gain a fair few votes.
Why would they lie to get their budget raised? They don't get any of the money either way, this is the UK we're talking about, not some corrupt African quasi-democracy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 08:14:19 AM
Well, that's obviously how it worked in the nationalized coal mines.
:lol:
Quote from: Tyr on April 07, 2014, 08:18:16 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 08:11:42 AM
Quote from: Tyr on April 07, 2014, 08:03:31 AM
With the government however you have awareness of the limited resources they're working with and efficiency and customer satisfaction is the only driving force.
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
I am sorry Tyr but that has to be the most naïve out-of-touch stuff I have read in a while.
Yes what you wrote about wringing out government money is true, but it is at least as much true for a 100% state-ran enterprise, probably more because they then have no real accountability. They just need to produce papers on those costs being necessary and they get their budget raised.
How?
Even if you assume they're not in politics to make the country a better place (which these days is most of them) they still want to get re-elected, and making the trains run on time is a way to gain a fair few votes.
Why would they lie to get their budget raised? They don't get any of the money either way, this is the UK we're talking about, not some corrupt African quasi-democracy.
1) I understand the UK has had it's share of corrupt MPs
2) It would not be the MPs doing the company leadership and bookkeeping now would they?
Quote
Well, that's obviously how it worked in the nationalized coal mines.
I don't understand this troll.
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 08:21:05 AM
1) I understand the UK has had it's share of corrupt MPs
2) It would not be the MPs doing the company leadership and bookkeeping now would they?
1: Not to the extent you're talking about. Not in the current generation at least. To get close I have to think back to the 50s/60s, a totally different world.
2: They're the ones controlling its budget and having the final say on major decisions.
Quote from: Tyr on April 07, 2014, 08:25:12 AM
I don't understand this troll.
It would appear to this casual observer that the coal industry was not a paragon of customer service and efficiency.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 08:29:59 AM
It would appear to this casual observer that the coal industry was not a paragon of customer service and efficiency.
That wasn't a public service though was it.
Quote from: Tyr on April 07, 2014, 08:25:12 AM
Quote
Well, that's obviously how it worked in the nationalized coal mines.
I don't understand this troll.
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 08:21:05 AM
1) I understand the UK has had it's share of corrupt MPs
2) It would not be the MPs doing the company leadership and bookkeeping now would they?
1: Not to the extent you're talking about. Not in the current generation at least. To get close I have to think back to the 50s/60s, a totally different world.
2: They're the ones controlling its budget and having the final say on major decisions.
An engineer of a sidetrack repair depot submits the invoice for an extra roll of cabling which is needed. Will his supervisor know if that is indeed needed unless there is vigorous checks and such? No. The state-appointed director of a railway approves the budge for a train modernisation program. Will the MPs know if it is not 20-40% higher than it needs to be? Will YOU as a voter know if the MP hasn't been given 5% of that 20% to give his seal of approval?
Of course not.
And all of that can happen with subsidised private companies as well, before you say it. I am not saying to not be very wary of subsidising with tax money. And such inefficient overspending can MOST DEFINITELY happen in 100% private enterprises as well. You have no idea how much it can happen.
But at the end of the day, a private enterprise with no access to tax money can only be so much inefficient and it's employees corrupt before it falls. A state run can be as ineffective and corrupt as it dares to be forever, because there is no end of tax money and especially loaned bond money.
Quote from: Tyr on April 07, 2014, 08:31:17 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 08:29:59 AM
It would appear to this casual observer that the coal industry was not a paragon of customer service and efficiency.
That wasn't a public service though was it.
Your point being?
Quote from: Tyr on April 07, 2014, 08:31:17 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 08:29:59 AM
It would appear to this casual observer that the coal industry was not a paragon of customer service and efficiency.
That wasn't a public service though was it.
Production of fuel is not a public service?
Quote from: Tyr on April 07, 2014, 08:31:17 AM
That wasn't a public service though was it.
How so?
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 08:11:42 AM
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
I am sorry Tyr but that has to be the most naïve out-of-touch stuff I have read in a while.
Your stuff is pretty far out there as well.
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 08:34:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 08:11:42 AM
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
I am sorry Tyr but that has to be the most naïve out-of-touch stuff I have read in a while.
Your stuff is pretty far out there as well.
:yeahright:
Quote
How so?
Coal mining is an industry,
Quote
Production of fuel is not a public service?
Not really.
Maybe there were public service aspects with the people who actually delivered coal to the public but that was a rather small part of the business, if it was part of the nationalised industry at all (I don't know, I guess so).
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 08:31:52 AM
An engineer of a sidetrack repair depot submits the invoice for an extra roll of cabling which is needed. Will his supervisor know if that is indeed needed unless there is vigorous checks and such? No. The state-appointed director of a railway approves the budge for a train modernisation program. Will the MPs know if it is not 20-40% higher than it needs to be? Will YOU as a voter know if the MP hasn't been given 5% of that 20% to give his seal of approval?
Of course not.
And all of that can happen with subsidised private companies as well, before you say it. I am not saying to not be very wary of subsidising with tax money. And such inefficient overspending can MOST DEFINITELY happen in 100% private enterprises as well. You have no idea how much it can happen.
That kind of corruption really doesn't happen very often in the UK. The slighest hint of such stuff is a big deal. We're not talking about Nigeria here.
Quote
But at the end of the day, a private enterprise with no access to tax money can only be so much inefficient and it's employees corrupt before it falls. A state run can be as ineffective and corrupt as it dares to be forever, because there is no end of tax money and especially loaned bond money.
That's not what we're talking about here. As I said myself true private railways work pretty well. That isn't an option in the UK however, building a railway these days is too much of an epic undertaking. I would totally encourage any company who wants to have a crack at it, if anyone is crazy enough.
Honestly, when people have the attitude that politicians are crooks and public institutions are inefficient and corrupt they create the environment for it to happen. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want your institutions and politicians to be corruption free and efficient, the very first thing you need to do is maintain the expectation that they will be; if your reaction is "that's to be expected" when you see inefficiency and corruption, you are contributing to enshrining it as the norm.
In short: for efficient national railways in the UK, Tamas must be deported.
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 08:34:51 AM
Your stuff is pretty far out there as well.
The US Supreme Court just ruled that not only is paying off politicians a form of free speech but it is how a Democracy is supposed to function. So I am not sure why you think it is so far out there.
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 08:36:29 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 08:34:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 08:11:42 AM
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
I am sorry Tyr but that has to be the most naïve out-of-touch stuff I have read in a while.
Your stuff is pretty far out there as well.
:yeahright:
You are projecting your Hungarian formed view of public institutions on to the UK as if it is some sort of universal truth about human nature. It's silly.
The UK has a culture where there are serious repercussions for a politician to fiddle with a few thousand pounds in expense claims. To approach that, and public policy, the same way you approach the kleptocracies of the former Eastern block is laughable.
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2014, 08:42:07 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 08:34:51 AM
Your stuff is pretty far out there as well.
The US Supreme Court just ruled that not only is paying off politicians a form of free speech but it is how a Democracy is supposed to function. So I am not sure why you think it is so far out there.
Yeah, the US seems pretty hell bent on undermining the foundations of good public policy these days which is sad. It did have a good run for a while there, though.
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 08:50:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2014, 08:42:07 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 08:34:51 AM
Your stuff is pretty far out there as well.
The US Supreme Court just ruled that not only is paying off politicians a form of free speech but it is how a Democracy is supposed to function. So I am not sure why you think it is so far out there.
Yeah, the US seems pretty hell bent on undermining the foundations of good public policy these days which is sad. It did have a good run for a while there, though.
I read an interesting commentary that this might actually backfire and cement the image of the GOP as the party of the 1% that doesn't care about the little man.
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 08:31:52 AM
A state run can be as ineffective and corrupt as it dares to be forever, because there is no end of tax money and especially loaned bond money.
Only of you let it. If you have a properly functioning democracy, the level of inefficiency you speak of is a major scandal that ends political and professional careers; which means that there is a significant incentive to avoid just that.
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 08:41:17 AM
Honestly, when people have the attitude that politicians are crooks and public institutions are inefficient and corrupt they create the environment for it to happen. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want your institutions and politicians to be corruption free and efficient, the very first thing you need to do is maintain the expectation that they will be; if your reaction is "that's to be expected" when you see inefficiency and corruption, you are contributing to enshrining it as the norm.
In short: for efficient national railways in the UK, Tamas must be deported.
:lol: What I give you is that I adore this country for the ease of everyday dealing compared to Hungary, achieved by the fact that not everybody is searching all the time on how he/she will be screwed by a deal or transaction, or how he/she can screw others. Makes everything much more relaxed. I do suspect that crooks must have a field day in this lovely environment. Then again, they have a field day in the Hungarian environment as well.
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 08:55:01 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 08:31:52 AM
A state run can be as ineffective and corrupt as it dares to be forever, because there is no end of tax money and especially loaned bond money.
Only of you let it. If you have a properly functioning democracy, the level of inefficiency you speak of is a major scandal that ends political and professional careers; which means that there is a significant incentive to avoid just that.
yes. And I am well aware there are degrees of difference between different political cultures. But at the end of the day, we are still talking about a system with that inherent danger built into it.
Train service, stock and rails are much improved over when I was a youth. The problem is the exorbitant and arcane pricing - your ticket could easily cost five times as much as that of the person sitting next to you taking the same journey depending on when, where and how you booked it.
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 08:57:07 AMyes. And I am well aware there are degrees of difference between different political cultures. But at the end of the day, we are still talking about a system with that inherent danger built into it.
Certainly, there are risks to state run services and industries, and the risk of inefficiency and corruption are among them. The proper response to that is to ensure there is a proper regulatory framework and oversight, and to inculcate a good institutional culture; not to completely eschew state run enterprises due to this risk. And whether public or private is best depends on a number of possible factors; when it comes to public goods and public policy cost and efficiency are not the only factors that matter (though cheap and efficient is preferable whee all else is equal).
I'm not even arguing that UK railways should be nationalized, but your categorical universal claims about the inevitable corruption inherent in state run anything everywhere is as silly as you make Tyr's claims out to be.
Basically it seems you've been traumatized by the Hungarian experience and that has damaged you ability to assess risk in other environments.
Quote from: Brazen on April 07, 2014, 08:58:56 AM
your ticket could easily cost five times as much as that of the person sitting next to you taking the same journey depending on when, where and how you booked it.
That's one of the most mindboggling things I've tried to make sense of in the UK.
Peak and off-peak I can understand, the rest just seems to be devoid of any logic.
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2014, 08:32:35 AM
Production of fuel is not a public service?
Of course not. It was publicly owned but no more a public service than BAE or Rolls Royce were.
I agree with Jacob. Polling on corruption has British people as cynical and suspicious as in Italy, but evidence of actual corruption has us at the same level as Scandinavia.
I think the worst argument against nationalising the railways is that it would lead to our politicians enriching themselves. We had the largest state involvement in the Western world until a few decades ago and there wasn't that sort of corruption - just inefficiency, waste and exacerbation of Britain's low productivity. Having said that I think the worst argument for nationalising them is that we'll get a better service out of people feeling their public service employees :lol:
It is worth remembering as well that the rails have been re-nationalised. It's the rolling stock that's privatised I think.
QuoteTrain service, stock and rails are much improved over when I was a youth. The problem is the exorbitant and arcane pricing - your ticket could easily cost five times as much as that of the person sitting next to you taking the same journey depending on when, where and how you booked it.
That was what your article was about, no?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 09:12:57 AM
Of course not. It was publicly owned but no more a public service than BAE or Rolls Royce were.
By what arcane interpretation is rail transport a public service then, and these others are not?
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 06:50:08 AM
The Danish National Railways are state owned, and are pretty decent and corruption free. Both Canada and Denmark have numerous examples of well functioning state-run enterprises and bodies that are not the locus of clientism and corruption, and are not treated as piggy banks to be raided by well-connected oligarchs.
I don't expect that it's a genetic difference; perhaps it is one of political and public culture? In any case, I don't think it's reasonable to apply the lessons from the apparent clusterfucks in Hungary to well functioning modern states.
Tell me you didn't just cite Via Rail as a "well functioning state-run enterprise".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 09:21:32 AM
By what arcane interpretation is rail transport a public service then, and these others are not?
Well for a start it provides a service to the public :mellow:
There's still a couple of public service elements to the privatised train services. They're contractually required to run certain routes even if they're non-economic.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 09:26:39 AM
Well for a start it provides a service to the public :mellow:
OK, the distinction between goods and services. Fair enough.
The next question for Squeeze then is: do only public *services* benefit from the efficiency and customer service advantages, or does it extend to publicly provided goods as well? If not, what explains the difference?
And what does it matter.
Do people suddenly become more effecient and less corruptible when you tell them they are providing a public service rather than working in industry?
Anyway, the most significant problem with the UK reailways is the short-term franchising system (generally 7 years per franchise) which incentivised squeezing as much as possible and gaming the system and discourages infrastructure investment by operators.
The one example of a long franchise being granted (Chiltern) has led to the best run railway in the country.
And there's no need for the franchise system to be restricted to the private sector. Governmental bodies are allowed to bid as well - TfL run the fanchises (sub-contracting to an operator) for a number of railway lines. I think Merseytravel do as well.
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2014, 09:26:17 AMTell me you didn't just cite Via Rail as a "well functioning state-run enterprise".
I didn't. Did you miss the "Danish" part of the Danish National Railways?
Quote from: Gups on April 07, 2014, 09:30:15 AM
Do people suddenly become more effecient and less corruptible when you tell them they are providing a public service rather than working in industry?
No. Which is why contract privatization does not typically improve things at all and generally governments in the US do it simply to keep from paying employee benefits rather than seeing it as an increase of efficiency.
Quote from: Maladict on April 07, 2014, 09:12:51 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 07, 2014, 08:58:56 AM
your ticket could easily cost five times as much as that of the person sitting next to you taking the same journey depending on when, where and how you booked it.
That's one of the most mindboggling things I've tried to make sense of in the UK.
Peak and off-peak I can understand, the rest just seems to be devoid of any logic.
I touched on it in an article I wrote a while back, but I'm still none the wiser.
http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2013/03/how-getting-low-down-rail-fares-might-make-passengers-worse (http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2013/03/how-getting-low-down-rail-fares-might-make-passengers-worse)
People better informed than I try to make sense of it. Yes, you have to do all this to attempt to find a cheap fare:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/cheap-train-tickets (http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/cheap-train-tickets)
Quote from: Gups on April 07, 2014, 09:30:15 AM
And what does it matter.
Do people suddenly become more effecient and less corruptible when you tell them they are providing a public service rather than working in industry?
Anyway, the most significant problem with the UK reailways is the short-term franchising system (generally 7 years per franchise) which incentivised squeezing as much as possible and gaming the system and discourages infrastructure investment by operators.
The one example of a long franchise being granted (Chiltern) has led to the best run railway in the country.
And there's no need for the franchise system to be restricted to the private sector. Governmental bodies are allowed to bid as well - TfL run the fanchises (sub-contracting to an operator) for a number of railway lines. I think Merseytravel do as well.
You make it sound like the system is relatively fixable as is. How accepted/controversial is your analysis? Is there any kind of political will to act on it?
Quote from: Gups on April 07, 2014, 09:30:15 AM
And what does it matter.
Do people suddenly become more effecient and less corruptible when you tell them they are providing a public service rather than working in industry?
Exactly. It's a bit 'our NHS is the envy of the world'.
On the other hand privatising something doesn't necessarily lead to a more efficient or better service either - see ATOS, Capita, G4S, Serco. I don't really think it's worth being wed to one or the other.
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 09:34:53 AM
[
You make it sound like the system is relatively fixable as is. How accepted/controversial is your analysis? Is there any kind of political will to act on it?
Views are polarised. There are a lot of people who woudl go for the Tyr view of nationalising the lot.
It's understandable because the privatisation in the early/mid 90s was utterly botched. Responsibility for track and for operations were split. One company was responsible for all of the track, signal and the major rail terminii. The country was split up for operational purposes into regions and franchises offered on a lowest bidder basis, generally for 7 years apiece. The system had fundamental design flaws and for the first 10 years or so was not fit for purpose. The company running the track (Railtrack) failed and had to be taken back into public ownership.
In some areas, there has been a significant improvement with the franchise system with the Government being much more savvy in the negotiations. But there are still some pretty poor operators out there and infrastructure improvements remain reaticve (geared to demand) rather than playing a role in economic development. The result is that there is a terrible Londoncentric bias in provision and the north-east and south-west are very badly served.
I do think the system is operating OK now, in the round with a lot of room for incremental improvements. I very much doubt that full-scale nationalisation is the answer (and is unaffordable in any event) but I do think that regional public bodies should be encouraged to bit for franchises and that franchises should be offered on 20+ year terms.
Is Tyr old enough to remember pre-privatisation BR?
My line used to get hand-me-down rolling stock. Now it has new rolling stock and twice the number of train services including direct services to some destinations that were not previously available.
BR used to concentrate funding on two or three lines leaving much of the network to falter. Falter badly. Also as a public service they were vulnerable to "prestige project syndrome"; does anyone here remember the fiasco with the development of high speed tilting trains?
Now, I'm not going to dispute that privatisation was mishandled; franchises should have been sold for longer periods and the system should have been sold as bloc franchises (track and train together - Network Rail's improved now but it was a problem for years.) But going back to the old nationalised system would be a major backwards step.
Edit: tapping away on a Kindle took so long that Gups said much the same thing before me.
It wasn't privatisation that made the railways better. It was the government actually beginning to take notice of them and invest in them.
Prior to the 90s the government was still channeling the ghost of Beeching, rail was an old fashioned relic, cars were the way things were done in the modern world.
Privatisation happened to come in however at a time of renewed global interest in railways, general (drastic) economic improvment and increased government investment.
I've used the railways in several countries, and the British system is one of the worst going (considering the infrastructure we have in place and the general wealth of our country).
The generally agreed best are the Swiss (state owned), the Germans (quasi-private, mostly state owned), and the Japanese (JR is usually what is meant here and that was privatised along a similar timeline to the UK however not because service was worse when it was state owned. Privatisation's success has been....highly dependant on where you live. The government maintains heavy influence in operations, it isn't truly private despite profits from the profitable parts being funneled away from the government)
In reaction to Tyr's apparent communist leanings, I would like to explore further the seemingly established (and not argued by me, for sure) fact that the UK and other highly developed Western countries having better culture toward their politics and as such national wealth management than more easternly places.
That's an excellent argument for the left to dismiss the hard worldwide evidence that the higher a state's involvement in the economy is, the more guaranteed the ruin of a country is.
However, what is also dismissed by them I think, is the source of that higher political culture, and more responsible relation to the common wealth. Namely: a (at least historically) healthy and influential middle class.
A healthy and influential middle class that has been allowed to develop precisely by the lack of state-controlled artificial influences on the economy.
The bane of Hungary and it's entire region, let alone the former Soviet territories in the ROTW is that the aristocracy there, combined with historical circumstances, has been able to successfully prevent the rise of a healthy middle class.
So while Tyr and perhaps others keep waving the red flag, it does worth remembering that the option of efficient state involvement (if there is one), has been granted by the toils and achievements of the very world of dependence on individual interests and accountability that the far left seems to be bent on decreasing.
The welfare world, so to speak, has been living off on the results of the world it denounced as bad.
Just sayin' :sleep:
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 11:35:27 AM
That's an excellent argument for the left to dismiss the hard worldwide evidence that the higher a state's involvement in the economy is, the more guaranteed the ruin of a country is.
The evidence is the other way around. The only place I can think of that would accord with that is Hong Kong and it's an extreme outlier.
QuoteA healthy and influential middle class that has been allowed to develop precisely by the lack of state-controlled artificial influences on the economy.
Rule of law? Enforceable property rights? Education? Weights and measures?
I think saying it's the middle class is a bit monocausal. But the emergence of the middle class in Western Europe (especially North-Western Europe) is exactly simultaneous with the 'state' emerging as an actor. The two reinforced and buttressed each other everywhere.
Without state-controlled artificial influences on the economy you get an economy dictated by strength. In other words, feudal aristocracy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 11:46:18 AM
The evidence is the other way around. The only place I can think of that would accord with that is Hong Kong and it's an extreme outlier.
Russia, Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Belarus, Singapore, Bolivia, China....
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 11:46:18 AM
The evidence is the other way around. The only place I can think of that would accord with that is Hong Kong and it's an extreme outlier.
Err.. The entire Soviet block, Venezuela, North Korea, Argentina, etc...
And again, you take something I said about less state influence, and jump right to the part where there is no state actor at all, and come up with a world where strength equals economic power. Funnily enough, we do agree that state actors (the ones with the monopoly on violence) running the economy does equal aristocratic feudalism.
But I digress.
No state influence in the economy does not equal the abolishment of the state in general, jeesh. Where did I ever say that? Rule of law, and accountability of citizens and corporations is always important for things to work and you need the state for that. However, trying to meddle in the economy is not necessary for the rule of law.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 11:50:16 AMRussia, Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Belarus, Singapore, Bolivia, China....
Yeah Cuba and North Korea are outliers as Hong Kong (and possibly Singapore) are.
I think you're equating corruption with state involvement and I'd agree that the more corrupt a country is the more likely it is a ruin. But the state in any Western European country or the US is far more involved in the economy than in Russia - masses more regulations, higher taxes, spending a greater proportion of the economy.
Edit: To put it another way I think the problem is that the economy is more involved in the state in those countries. It's captured by economic actors which is a very unhelpful thing.
QuoteAnd again, you take something I said about less state influence, and jump right to the part where there is no state actor at all, and come up with a world where strength equals economic power. Funnily enough, we do agree that state actors (the ones with the monopoly on violence) running the economy does equal aristocratic feudalism.
You made an historical point that the middle class emerged because of the lack of state involvement, while the middle class and the state emerged together reinforcing one another. Without a strong, active state there is no middle class there's aristocratic feudalism, or Putinist Russia.
And that historical process involved the state meddling in the economy a lot.
We have one of those peculiar public-private mixes that Germany likes for all kinds of service. We have the behemoth Deutsche Bahn, which operates like a private company, but is still 100% state-owned. And then we have a multitude of smaller railway companies that run everything from a single small line to a network of intercity trains on less popular routes. As Deutsche Bahn would have to be extremely heavily regulated anyway, owning all the railways and the stations, I don't see any advantage in selling them. They have to pay a dividend to the federal government anyway.
Canada has a state-owned rail carrier - Via Rail. I'm sure the government would love to privatize it if it could - it's a leftover from when the government owned Canadian National. But while CN is profitable and has been sold, Via loses money hand over fist. It receives a subsidy of almost a half billion dollars per year.
That also means that, at least out west, passenger trains are rare as hens teeth. I think the train through Edmonton comes twice a week. When you consider the fact that there are multiple planes and busses leaving every day it makes rail a non-factor.
Even then though, the few times I've looked at taking the train, the cost is the same as taking the bus, with it taking just as long as well (if not longer). There is zero reason to ever take Via.
Gups is right about the contracting method. It's not good.
Seems to me regardless of the length of the contract you're going to have the same end game suboptimality in the last X years.
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2014, 01:50:10 PM
Canada has a state-owned rail carrier - Via Rail. I'm sure the government would love to privatize it if it could - it's a leftover from when the government owned Canadian National. But while CN is profitable and has been sold, Via loses money hand over fist. It receives a subsidy of almost a half billion dollars per year.
That also means that, at least out west, passenger trains are rare as hens teeth. I think the train through Edmonton comes twice a week. When you consider the fact that there are multiple planes and busses leaving every day it makes rail a non-factor.
Even then though, the few times I've looked at taking the train, the cost is the same as taking the bus, with it taking just as long as well (if not longer). There is zero reason to ever take Via.
Even if you did take the train, no matter where you go, you still need a car.
Quote from: Neil on April 07, 2014, 02:41:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2014, 01:50:10 PM
Canada has a state-owned rail carrier - Via Rail. I'm sure the government would love to privatize it if it could - it's a leftover from when the government owned Canadian National. But while CN is profitable and has been sold, Via loses money hand over fist. It receives a subsidy of almost a half billion dollars per year.
That also means that, at least out west, passenger trains are rare as hens teeth. I think the train through Edmonton comes twice a week. When you consider the fact that there are multiple planes and busses leaving every day it makes rail a non-factor.
Even then though, the few times I've looked at taking the train, the cost is the same as taking the bus, with it taking just as long as well (if not longer). There is zero reason to ever take Via.
Even if you did take the train, no matter where you go, you still need a car.
I guess that might be the one benefit of the train actually. Via stations are so old they're all historic sites located right in the middle of downtown, so you might not actually need a car.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 02:41:39 PM
Seems to me regardless of the length of the contract you're going to have the same end game suboptimality in the last X years.
The bigger problem is that private actors are not going to invest for the long term or obviously for goals which do not go to the bottom line. Transportation infrastructure is an important economic tool for governments to use to influence economic development and shouldnt be left to companies who have a limited investment horizon.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2014, 02:47:58 PM
The bigger problem is that private actors are not going to invest for the long term or obviously for goals which do not go to the bottom line. Transportation infrastructure is an important economic tool for governments to use to influence economic development and shouldnt be left to companies who have a limited investment horizon.
The rail infrastructure itself is owned by a state company. They did privatise it but that was a disaster (quite literally, the negligence of that company caused a couple of train disasters).
Jos's right. For a long time the view was that trains were just going to decline and that cars were the future so there wasn't a need for much investment. That's shifted quite strongly now. So we could do with a fair bit of investment in the infrastructure. But, sadly, I don't see that happening outside London anytime soon :bleeding:
Edit: Having said that obviously it's different in a small, heavily populated country than, say, Canada :lol:
Edit: In addition Jos is right that I think most of the rail franchises are owned by SNCF or Deutsche Bahn (just like the money we're paying French state-owned companies to build new nuclear plants :lol:) and that the cost of subsidies and infrastructure is significantly higher than the money we were actually spending on British Rail.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2014, 02:53:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2014, 02:47:58 PM
The bigger problem is that private actors are not going to invest for the long term or obviously for goals which do not go to the bottom line. Transportation infrastructure is an important economic tool for governments to use to influence economic development and shouldnt be left to companies who have a limited investment horizon.
The rail infrastructure itself is owned by a state company. They did privatise it but that was a disaster (quite literally, the negligence of that company caused a couple of train disasters).
Jos's right. For a long time the view was that trains were just going to decline and that cars were the future so there wasn't a need for much investment. That's shifted quite strongly now. So we could do with a fair bit of investment in the infrastructure. But, sadly, I don't see that happening outside London anytime soon :bleeding:
Edit: Having said that obviously it's different in a small, heavily populated country than, say, Canada :lol:
Which is a good reason not to put the operation side in the hands of private actors. Creating transportation hubs and operating out of those hubs at a loss during the early years are good ways of estabishing economic development outside of the existing major centre(s). On a local scale that is what we did in Vancouver. The hubs set up outside the city centre attracted a large amount of development and now the outskirts are the biggest engines a economic growth and development.
None of that would have been possible if operations were in the hands of private actors because until the development came those sections of line operated at a loss and now the government, through its crown corp that runs the whole thing, can take the money from the increased ridership and continue to develop the intrastructure. It becomes a virtuous cycle of transportation infrastructure development.
Granted it is not perfect. With infrastructure development in the hands of government and its appointees (both provincial and local government) there is no end to the squabbles about funding formulas and building priorities. But it is a lot better than spending money on subsidizing a private operator who wont be contributing to the cost of further infrastructure development.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2014, 02:47:58 PM
The bigger problem is that private actors are not going to invest for the long term or obviously for goals which do not go to the bottom line.
The do try to get around that through contract provisions designed to encourage infrastructure investment and maintenance spending through things like reimbursements and fee-based service payments, but that usually just causes other problems and can be abused to get more money from the state than it would otherwise cost.
Honestly, the ones operating the rails need to also have the incentives to take care of it and expand it that ownership provides and also the restraint that the profit motive provides. It doesn't matter to me if it's public or private, whichever works best for that particular place, but it needs to have both of those factors or it will definitely be doomed in the long run.
Thread needs more Mussolini. :ph34r:
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 08:36:29 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 08:34:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 08:11:42 AM
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
I am sorry Tyr but that has to be the most naïve out-of-touch stuff I have read in a while.
Your stuff is pretty far out there as well.
:yeahright:
No, you are a kook.
Jacob probably has the right of it. While public enterprises can be victimized by corruption, it's important to maintain a culture of anti-corruption to keep them fresh. Of course, in the age of mass media, where politics has become completely overtaken by the machine, it's hard to maintain that kind of environment. Still, there's no sense in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and some level of intervention is obviously required to prevent the brutal injustices of Tamas' laissez-faire.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 07, 2014, 03:39:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2014, 02:47:58 PM
The bigger problem is that private actors are not going to invest for the long term or obviously for goals which do not go to the bottom line.
The do try to get around that through contract provisions designed to encourage infrastructure investment and maintenance spending through things like reimbursements and fee-based service payments, but that usually just causes other problems and can be abused to get more money from the state than it would otherwise cost.
Honestly, the ones operating the rails need to also have the incentives to take care of it and expand it that ownership provides and also the restraint that the profit motive provides. It doesn't matter to me if it's public or private, whichever works best for that particular place, but it needs to have both of those factors or it will definitely be doomed in the long run.
Agreed. If it was possible to create the economic conditions for private actors to have the incentive to do both then I wouldnt care either way either. But I dont think that is possible.
I agree with you that trying to create contractual obligations requiring private actors to provide inventment and maintenance is difficult at best. In my experience the private actor will do the minimum possible without running the risk of an outright breach that might entitle the government to terminate the contract for breach. As a practical matter much of the profit margin in such contracts is extracted from these sorts of obligations. In my view the public is better served by the government doing the work itself without the expense of building in that profit margin.
I have changed my view over the years on this issue. I used to be a lot like Yi. But with experience I have come to the view that when private actors are paid out of the public purse to carry out this kind of managment function all kinds of abuses occur.
I have no objection to government contracting out the construction contracts to create the infrastucture. But when it comes to running the system and deciding where the resources should be spent this is one of the areas where governments are in the best position.
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2014, 08:11:42 AM
Quote from: Tyr on April 07, 2014, 08:03:31 AM
With the government however you have awareness of the limited resources they're working with and efficiency and customer satisfaction is the only driving force.
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
I am sorry Tyr but that has to be the most naïve out-of-touch stuff I have read in a while.
Yes what you wrote about wringing out government money is true, but it is at least as much true for a 100% state-ran enterprise, probably more because they then have no real accountability. They just need to produce papers on those costs being necessary and they get their budget raised.
Maybe that is how they might do it in Hungary. But I doubt even they would be so daft.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2014, 04:08:07 PM
Agreed. If it was possible to create the economic conditions for private actors to have the incentive to do both then I wouldnt care either way either. But I dont think that is possible.
I agree with you that trying to create contractual obligations requiring private actors to provide inventment and maintenance is difficult at best. In my experience the private actor will do the minimum possible without running the risk of an outright breach that might entitle the government to terminate the contract for breach. As a practical matter much of the profit margin in such contracts is extracted from these sorts of obligations. In my view the public is better served by the government doing the work itself without the expense of building in that profit margin.
I have changed my view over the years on this issue. I used to be a lot like Yi. But with experience I have come to the view that when private actors are paid out of the public purse to carry out this kind of managment function all kinds of abuses occur.
I have no objection to government contracting out the construction contracts to create the infrastucture. But when it comes to running the system and deciding where the resources should be spent this is one of the areas where governments are in the best position.
You're missing out on the major reason why the private sector can be the better, cheaper option even with what you have said - unions.
If the government does something "in house" those employees are required to be unionized. That means high wages, full benefits and pension, restrictions on firing people. However once something is outsourced that is all out the window. They can then hire the cheapest non-union workers at a significantly reduced rate.
Canadian public sector's closed shop? :mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2014, 04:24:29 PM
You're missing out on the major reason why the private sector can be the better, cheaper option even with what you have said - unions.
Ok Yi. :rolleyes:
Are you seriously contending that a private actor will spend the billions required to upgrade transportation infracture just because being non union gives them a cost advantage on labour costs.
And btw BB, is there any major rail or transit company out there that isnt unionized?
Are there any non-unionized railway workers? It seems to me that the railways have always stood high in the family of organized labour.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2014, 04:38:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2014, 04:24:29 PM
You're missing out on the major reason why the private sector can be the better, cheaper option even with what you have said - unions.
Ok Yi. :rolleyes:
Are you seriously contending that a private actor will spend the billions required to upgrade transportation infracture just because being non union gives them a cost advantage on labour costs.
And btw BB, is there any major rail or transit company out there that isnt unionized?
The later is a fair point, but I was commenting more generally.
And besides, the private sector CP and CN do in fact seem to spend quite a bit on maintaining their rail infrastructure.
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2014, 04:41:13 PM
And besides, the private sector CP and CN do in fact seem to spend quite a bit on maintaining their rail infrastructure.
That is because they own the infrastructure going back to the days when land was granted to them as an incentive to build the lines in the first place. Those sorts of economic conditions cannot be replicated. What we were talking about is creating an artificial contractual incentive for private actors who dont own the infrastructure to add to and maintain that infrastructure. It just doesnt work very well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 08:14:19 AM
Well, that's obviously how it worked in the nationalized coal mines.
Customer service was outstanding. When ordinary folk showed up they literally had coal thrown to them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2014, 02:47:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 02:41:39 PM
Seems to me regardless of the length of the contract you're going to have the same end game suboptimality in the last X years.
The bigger problem is that private actors are not going to invest for the long term or obviously for goals which do not go to the bottom line. Transportation infrastructure is an important economic tool for governments to use to influence economic development and shouldnt be left to companies who have a limited investment horizon.
In the abstract, it would seem that government should be responsible for much of the upgrades in infrastructure, and that should be reflected in the cost of the franchises?
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 06:53:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2014, 02:47:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2014, 02:41:39 PM
Seems to me regardless of the length of the contract you're going to have the same end game suboptimality in the last X years.
The bigger problem is that private actors are not going to invest for the long term or obviously for goals which do not go to the bottom line. Transportation infrastructure is an important economic tool for governments to use to influence economic development and shouldnt be left to companies who have a limited investment horizon.
In the abstract, it would seem that government should be responsible for much of the upgrades in infrastructure, and that should be reflected in the cost of the franchises?
I think that is just another way of saying the private sector participation isnt profitable enough, or at all, for the private sector to participate if the costs of infrastructure was passed on to the private sector operator. It if was profitable then we would be seeing companies competing on putting in infrastructure themselves so they can reap the profits of operating those systems. The only way this becomes viable as a private enterprise is through government subsidy which brings in all the problems we have been discussing.
At which point libertarians will say "if private actors can't turn a profit doing it, the public doesn't need such a service."
Ewwww, trains. Only buses are worse.
Smelly poors with their diseases.
A problem with those calling out for privatization at all costs is the emphasis on profits. The very idea that railways need to turn a profit is fundamentally broken.
You don't want then losing too much money certainly, but they don't need to be profitable any more than sewerage pipes or the fire brigade does.
I don't think it's a bad thing for state enterprises to turn a profit.
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2014, 07:41:45 PM
At which point libertarians will say "if private actors can't turn a profit doing it, the public doesn't need such a service."
Libertarians would actually produce reams of selectively chosen data showing how private enterprise builds money losing infrastructure better than the government.
Quote from: Tyr on April 07, 2014, 08:46:12 PM
A problem with those calling out for privatization at all costs is the emphasis on profits. The very idea that railways need to turn a profit is fundamentally broken.
You don't want then losing too much money certainly, but they don't need to be profitable any more than sewerage pipes or the fire brigade does.
Private industry can be not-for-profit as well. Just because there are not profits does not mean people are not being paid. However they do tend to do very badly in big money losing scenarios like most public transit these days. It is ridiculous how expensive it is for modern cities just to add light rail lines, back in the day it cost peanuts to do that. I just do not get why it costs so much these days. Even the freaking New York public transit loses money and it gets millions of customers a day.
The biggest advantage that private-non-for-profit as opposed to public companies these days, in the US anyway, are the brutal costs of the pensions and the benefits public employees tend to receive.
Quote from: Neil on April 07, 2014, 08:51:56 PM
I don't think it's a bad thing for state enterprises to turn a profit.
In Texas our nutty right wing government pretty much demands every public service do this. The park service owns all these golf courses so they can get funds for actually maintaining parks and pools and things.
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2014, 09:17:07 PM
Even the freaking New York public transit loses money and it gets millions of customers a day.
I just looked it up and they reported 1.7 billion riders in 2013.
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2014, 01:50:10 PM
Canada has a state-owned rail carrier - Via Rail. I'm sure the government would love to privatize it if it could - it's a leftover from when the government owned Canadian National. But while CN is profitable and has been sold, Via loses money hand over fist. It receives a subsidy of almost a half billion dollars per year.
That also means that, at least out west, passenger trains are rare as hens teeth. I think the train through Edmonton comes twice a week. When you consider the fact that there are multiple planes and busses leaving every day it makes rail a non-factor.
Even then though, the few times I've looked at taking the train, the cost is the same as taking the bus, with it taking just as long as well (if not longer). There is zero reason to ever take Via.
That sounds exactly like Amtrak--except we spend $1.3-1.4bn a year of public funds keeping it afloat. I'm not sure how the Canadian version is, but a particular issue for Amtrak even beyond its cost (which I can forgive to a degree, we subsidize auto travel with road maintenance for example) is that it primarily runs on privately owned freight lines which create right of way issues for Amtrak trains. This is why on large segments of the Amtrak system it takes 20-40% longer to travel by rail than by car. In the Northeast Corridor Amtrak actually owns the track, and that's the area where Amtrak actually runs a decent service and is an area where it turns a profit.
Realistically I question the entire concept of Amtrak, which outside of the NEC is just about maintaining the "availability of long distance rail travel" something most Americans do not want and no Americans need. No one needs to be able to go from Philadelphia to Minneapolis by train. That's what planes are for, and if you are too poor for the plane that's what a bus is for and Greyhound is generally faster and cheaper than Amtrak and much cheaper than flying in most circumstances.
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2014, 09:17:07 PM
Even the freaking New York public transit loses money and it gets millions of customers a day.
I suspect New York could turn a profit on its public transit because so many people pretty much have to use it. But instead New York opted for lower fares to give greater access to economically marginal persons instead of operating at a profit. Not necessarily the worst thing ever if you're running a city like New York, but I do think you could run a profitable transit system in a place like NYC with very high ridership and a large population that couldn't just easily switch to another mode of transportation if you raised the fares to cover operating costs and generate profit.
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2014, 09:20:12 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 07, 2014, 08:51:56 PM
I don't think it's a bad thing for state enterprises to turn a profit.
In Texas our nutty right wing government pretty much demands every public service do this. The park service owns all these golf courses so they can get funds for actually maintaining parks and pools and things.
Yeah, but that's just taking a good idea too far. Just because it's nice when things turn a profit doesn't mean that it's imperative that everything turn a profit.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 07, 2014, 09:37:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2014, 09:17:07 PM
Even the freaking New York public transit loses money and it gets millions of customers a day.
I suspect New York could turn a profit on its public transit because so many people pretty much have to use it. But instead New York opted for lower fares to give greater access to economically marginal persons instead of operating at a profit. Not necessarily the worst thing ever if you're running a city like New York, but I do think you could run a profitable transit system in a place like NYC with very high ridership and a large population that couldn't just easily switch to another mode of transportation if you raised the fares to cover operating costs and generate profit.
It is true that the fares have been at many points, lower than those in Boston. We also don't have any sense of zones (or distance sort of as SF does with BART) as same 2.50 will get you to all stops.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 08:05:53 PM
Ewwww, trains. Only buses are worse.
Buses are terrible. Trains are awesome.
Public transport, major infrastructure projects, and basic education would be by far the most challenging to reasonably put out into 100% private operation. I am not sure I would dismiss the option completely just because of this, but still.
As for turning profit for public transport, I think that is a bit blurry. There are arguments for keeping it as cheap for customers as possible as a sort of economic incentive.
However, today's "profit" could become tomorrow's investment in upgrades and modernisation. I understand you do not really need that when you can just have more tax money for those, and you get to have people who do not actually use the service contribute to keeping it in good shape (ain't that jolly good), but maybe it would be more just to at least try to make these services economically viable, where it is possible?
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2014, 04:26:39 AM
However, today's "profit" could become tomorrow's investment in upgrades and modernisation.
And today's "losses" could become tomorrow's wider tax base.
Quote from: Brazen on April 07, 2014, 09:32:39 AM
I touched on it in an article I wrote a while back, but I'm still none the wiser.
http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2013/03/how-getting-low-down-rail-fares-might-make-passengers-worse (http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2013/03/how-getting-low-down-rail-fares-might-make-passengers-worse)
[/quote]
Thanks, nice article. It will be of some help next time :)
However,
Quoteour continental counterparts offer far less frequent trains
really? I remember dropping parts of itineraries for lack of suitable departures.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 08, 2014, 08:49:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2014, 04:26:39 AM
However, today's "profit" could become tomorrow's investment in upgrades and modernisation.
And today's "losses" could become tomorrow's wider tax base.
Make food free as well then. And housing.
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2014, 10:01:30 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on April 08, 2014, 08:49:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2014, 04:26:39 AM
However, today's "profit" could become tomorrow's investment in upgrades and modernisation.
And today's "losses" could become tomorrow's wider tax base.
Make food free as well then. And housing.
:huh:
Nobody suggested making railways free. That's silly.
And it is actually pretty common for governments to provide subsidised housing for the poor, and I suppose one could call income support subsised food (some countries even make the link even more obvious with food stamps)
Quote from: Tyr on April 08, 2014, 10:26:57 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2014, 10:01:30 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on April 08, 2014, 08:49:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2014, 04:26:39 AM
However, today's "profit" could become tomorrow's investment in upgrades and modernisation.
And today's "losses" could become tomorrow's wider tax base.
Make food free as well then. And housing.
:huh:
Nobody suggested making railways free. That's silly.
And it is actually pretty common for governments to provide subsidised housing for the poor, and I suppose one could call income support subsised food (some countries even make the link even more obvious with food stamps)
well if deficit spending on communal services is a net positive economically, we should go wild.
Tamas, can I ask, what are you arguing for now? I'm a bit lost.
Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2014, 10:30:50 AM
Tamas, can I ask, what are you arguing for now? I'm a bit lost.
Nothing. I was bored.
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2014, 10:21:51 PM
It is true that the fares have been at many points, lower than those in Boston. We also don't have any sense of zones (or distance sort of as SF does with BART) as same 2.50 will get you to all stops.
Used to be two tokens to get to Far Rockaway back in the old days. But I like the NYC system. Especially since it doesn't penalize the more working-class people living deep in the outer boroughs while holding down a job in Manhattan.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 08, 2014, 12:19:58 PM
But I like the NYC system. Especially since it doesn't penalize the more working-class people living deep in the outer boroughs while holding down a job in Manhattan.
Yes. Unlike other systems that penalize outlying areas, it does take into account that many of those who work in central locations will need to travel from far away.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 08, 2014, 08:49:52 AM
And today's "losses" could become tomorrow's wider tax base.
Possibly, but nor probably, and there are few who would try to justify infrastructure on that basis. Today's losses on mass transit are today's savings on not having to construct more roads.
The problem with private transport is that it doesn't capture the externalities that alternate (to the auto, for instance) transport creates. Public transit diverts public dollars from public roads to public transit subsidies. No one gains or loses in that exchange except through efficiency (i.e through the mass transit subsidies being less expensive than non-mass-transit subsidies). when that mass transit subsidy is going instead to a private actor, the private actor has incentive to try to get subsidies that are inefficient. That, IMO, is why combo-transit systems are so hard to get right.
Quote from: Tyr on April 07, 2014, 08:46:12 PM
A problem with those calling out for privatization at all costs is the emphasis on profits. The very idea that railways need to turn a profit is fundamentally broken.
You don't want then losing too much money certainly, but they don't need to be profitable any more than sewerage pipes or the fire brigade does.
Profitability is how you know they are serving the people in the best way possible. It makes sense to run one or two lines at a loss if there is reason, but if the whole system that you pay to ride can't stay in the black the taxpayers aren't getting their money's worth.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2014, 02:21:47 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 07, 2014, 08:46:12 PM
A problem with those calling out for privatization at all costs is the emphasis on profits. The very idea that railways need to turn a profit is fundamentally broken.
You don't want then losing too much money certainly, but they don't need to be profitable any more than sewerage pipes or the fire brigade does.
Profitability is how you know they are serving the people in the best way possible. It makes sense to run one or two lines at a loss if there is reason, but if the whole system that you pay to ride can't stay in the black the taxpayers aren't getting their money's worth.
I dont think that logic holds. Profit does not equal providing the service well or efficiently in the context of public transportation operations or infrastructure development. Rather it often means the opposite. Profit is a good indication a private actor is efficient in the context of a marketplace where there is a number of able competitors. But in the context of public transportation it is more likely an indicator that the operator was able to get someone else to pay for the costs associated with the service rather than having them hit the operator's bottom line.
Quote from: Maladict on April 08, 2014, 04:23:45 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 07, 2014, 08:05:53 PM
Ewwww, trains. Only buses are worse.
Buses are terrible. Trains are awesome.
I ran into Dukakis riding Amtrak a couple of times. :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2014, 02:21:47 PM
Profitability is how you know they are serving the people in the best way possible. It makes sense to run one or two lines at a loss if there is reason, but if the whole system that you pay to ride can't stay in the black the taxpayers aren't getting their money's worth.
That's the kind of thinking that leads to suboptimal allocations of money. How much profit does a typical highway (say, I-5 from Irvine to downtown LA) make every year? Or, to use your example, all of the highways in greater LA put together? None? Yeah, none. In fact, they all operate at a massive, massive loss every single year. Does that mean that the taxpayers are not getting their money's worth?
You have to look at transport as a complete system, not a railway as a stand-alone entity. Because railroads are not stand-alone, and sometimes it is better to run a bunch of railroads at a loss than to build and maintain ten more lanes of highway because you let some of the railroads go out of business.
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2014, 10:28:21 AM
well if deficit spending on communal services is a net positive economically, we should go wild.
It does, and we do.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2014, 02:21:47 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 07, 2014, 08:46:12 PM
A problem with those calling out for privatization at all costs is the emphasis on profits. The very idea that railways need to turn a profit is fundamentally broken.
You don't want then losing too much money certainly, but they don't need to be profitable any more than sewerage pipes or the fire brigade does.
Profitability is how you know they are serving the people in the best way possible. It makes sense to run one or two lines at a loss if there is reason, but if the whole system that you pay to ride can't stay in the black the taxpayers aren't getting their money's worth.
NYC isn't in the black but definitely worth it.
Almost nowhere is in the black, and they don't really have to be. The farther away from it they are though, the more you know those taxpayers are getting screwed. It's mostly enough that the people managing the railway are afraid of running deficits.
Fares cover less than half of cost of running MTA.
http://www.tstc.org/101/mta.php#profit
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2014, 05:06:13 PM
Almost nowhere is in the black, and they don't really have to be. The farther away from it they are though, the more you know those taxpayers are getting screwed.
That is a separate issue of how costs should be funded. It is a huge issue in Vancouver right now. We are a city of bridges. Some are tolled and others are not. The people who pay the tolls rightly point out the unfairness of putting extra costs on them for the maintenance and expansion of the system.
There are a number of models to try to deal with funding. I dont think anyone has come up with an ideal funding model for transportation. If you have a model which bases fees on distance travelled then you end up benefiting people who can afford to live close to work and play but then you may also create economic incentives for economic development in outlying areas independent of the city. The promise of economic development close to home is probably cold comfort to those who still have to travel into the City for their work.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2014, 02:21:47 PM
Profitability is how you know they are serving the people in the best way possible. It makes sense to run one or two lines at a loss if there is reason, but if the whole system that you pay to ride can't stay in the black the taxpayers aren't getting their money's worth.
That's a very reductive way of looking at it. On that logic there would be no public transport in rural communities. The old (who travel for free anyway) and the poor would have to depend on their neighbours. It defeats the point of a public transport system which is to provide a service to the public at large, not just the economic lines.
Frankly I'd argue the bits that can stay in the black are probably the bits that can most easily be hived off to the private sector.
QuoteThere are a number of models to try to deal with funding. I dont think anyone has come up with an ideal funding model for transportation. If you have a model which bases fees on distance travelled then you end up benefiting people who can afford to live close to work and play but then you may also create economic incentives for economic development in outlying areas independent of the city. The promise of economic development close to home is probably cold comfort to those who still have to travel into the City for their work.
And paying by journey doesn't necessarily work if you need to change to get to work which is a problem for the low-paid in London.
For us the system is used - rail journeys have almost doubled in the last 20 years and the public transport in London has been revolutionised since Ken's first term. But it's a challenge to get the balance of public service, profit and investment for the future right. Sadly I think the government's fucking it up. Largely because they're Tories so they live in fear of their local parties turning on them for concreting over a field and but also because neither the government nor Boris seems to have a plan in the first place.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2014, 05:47:15 PM
That's a very reductive way of looking at it.
Of course it is.
QuoteOn that logic there would be no public transport in rural communities. The old (who travel for free anyway) and the poor would have to depend on their neighbours. It defeats the point of a public transport system which is to provide a service to the public at large, not just the economic lines.
Not true. You just wouldn't have a whole train serving a town where only five people use it. That's bad for the taxpayers and bad for the environment. Sometimes, the best way to transport is actually a car. The rail network can send regular shuttles to different places, etc. It's a matter of giving the right size service for the customer base. Nowhere need be unserved. It doesn't even need to make money--just lose less.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2014, 06:06:09 PM
Not true. You just wouldn't have a whole train serving a town where only five people use it. That's bad for the taxpayers and bad for the environment. Sometimes, the best way to transport is actually a car. The rail network can send regular shuttles to different places, etc. It's a matter of giving the right size service for the customer base. Nowhere need be unserved. It doesn't even need to make money--just lose less.
Not everyone can drive. Especially in this country, especially the old and the poor. Trains don't 'serve' a town they're normally going somewhere else on that route they may very well stop in a town with fewer than five passengers a day - I get the train to Dorset and used to live in the Highlands there are stops where I've never seen anyone get on or off.
But I was actually thinking about rural bus services. I can't drive so I've had to use buses in Dorset and in the vast majority of cases I'm almost certain I'm the only person on there who's paying for the bus. It's either school-kids or the elderly, both of whom get free bus passes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2014, 06:12:28 PM
But I was actually thinking about rural bus services. I can't drive so I've had to use buses in Dorset and in the vast majority of cases I'm almost certain I'm the only person on there who's paying for the bus. It's either school-kids or the elderly, both of whom get free bus passes.
Nothing wrong with that. It can even be a complementary service included in the rail fare where it makes sense not to send a train.
I've only ridden a train once in my life (subway does not count!). I think I was five when I did it.
He made a pretty fearsome tank commander.
He and John Kerry were on Cheers once together. :P
The thing is with being perfectly fine with operating at a loss is that, again, it is the perfect environment for corruption.
Accepting that operating some of these at a loss is inevitable is one thing. Not even trying to minimise being in the red is an other.
In related news, the Hungarian government has sort of announced that they would nationalise utility services and basically sell their services not just to individuals at a loss (as the service companies are pretty much doing nowadays due to state-enforced prices), but to companies as well, to help growth.
I understand this is considered a good thing then?
Why do you think that your experience with the role of the Hungarian state in the economy is applicable to other countries/contexts? Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate every measure on its own merits depending on the context?
It may or may not make sense to nationalize utilities in Hungary, but I am sure the criteria for that are different than deciding whether it makes sense to nationalize utilities in Hong Kong or Haiti or Honduras.
Quote from: Zanza on April 09, 2014, 06:01:41 AM
Why do you think that your experience with the role of the Hungarian state in the economy is applicable to other countries/contexts? Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate every measure on its own merits depending on the context?
It may or may not make sense to nationalize utilities in Hungary, but I am sure the criteria for that are different than deciding whether it makes sense to nationalize utilities in Hong Kong or Haiti or Honduras.
I meant the idea of selling energy below break-even to companies, via state-owned energy companies.
Not a good idea. There are no positive externalities with electricity consumption.
Quote from: Tamas on April 09, 2014, 03:57:49 AM
Accepting that operating some of these at a loss is inevitable is one thing. Not even trying to minimise being in the red is an other.
Are you suggesting that public transport authorities are "not even trying to minimise being in the red"?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2014, 11:31:46 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 09, 2014, 03:57:49 AM
Accepting that operating some of these at a loss is inevitable is one thing. Not even trying to minimise being in the red is an other.
Are you suggesting that public transport authorities are "not even trying to minimise being in the red"?
No, as I do not know how each one works. Hungarian ones ramp up some totally insane amount of debt, but as it has been established here, it is due to Hungary's untermensch status.
I actually meant that some posters genuinely seem to think that taxpayer cost of a transport system is an irrelevant side detail.
Quote from: Tamas on April 09, 2014, 12:00:13 PM
I actually meant that some posters genuinely seem to think that taxpayer cost of a transport system is an irrelevant side detail.
I am not sure who that might be. The point being made is that the cost of transportation systems requires the participation of the taxpayor.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2014, 06:12:28 PM
It's either school-kids or the elderly, both of whom get free bus passes.
I don't like this trend of old people getting things for free just for having lived a long time. In most of Canada they get something like a 25% discount on bus passes and that's bad enough. Completely free is ridiculous.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2014, 12:09:29 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2014, 07:36:11 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 08, 2014, 06:43:31 PM
Ugh.
What? He's cool.
:lol:
*shrug* He is, what can I say? He was a professor at Northeastern while I was there, and then when I was at BIDMC he used to come in and visit the CEO all the time (the then-CEO led the Boston Harbor cleanup project when Dukakis was governor).
He would have been a terrible President, but he's a nice guy.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 09, 2014, 03:18:33 PM
I don't like this trend of old people getting things for free just for having lived a long time. In most of Canada they get something like a 25% discount on bus passes and that's bad enough. Completely free is ridiculous.
Dude, tell me about it. Today I went to Wendy's for lunch and this old bag came in with a less-old bag and kept shouting to her "MAKE SURE THEY RING IT UP AS A SENIOR DRINK!" while less oldy ordered. Then she wasted more of the cashier's time by showing an old receipt from like six months ago where she wasn't charged for a senior drink and demanding a refund. :bleeding: Meanwhile people who are actually in a hurry were standing around waiting...
It's totally different when profit maximizers do it vs. the gubmint doing it.
I know, but any opening at all where I can attack the elderly I shall take it. :cool:
grumbler pays full price for his coffee and doesn't complain. He's chill like that.
I like when the geezers at McDonalds order a "SENIOR coffee". Like it's not already obvious that they're older than dirt.
You know, as long as you go to these joints after 5:30 you shouldn't be having these issues. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2014, 03:58:08 PM
You know, as long as you go to these joints after 5:30 you shouldn't be having these issues. :huh:
If I go there it's usually in the morning to get an egg mcmuffin. My local McD's in the morning is basically a senior center.
Weird. I've never heard of old people getting discounts from companies here.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2014, 04:41:36 PM
Weird. I've never heard of old people getting discounts from companies here.
The Landed Gentry Effect?
There's no equivalent of the AARP which probably helps.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2014, 04:41:36 PM
Weird. I've never heard of old people getting discounts from companies here.
It's quite rampant here. If you want old people to eat/shop/whatever at your establishment, you almost have to do it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2014, 04:45:01 PM
There's no equivalent of the AARP which probably helps.
I sincerely doubt AARP lobbied Wendy's to knock a dime off a cup of coffee. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2014, 04:48:34 PM
I sincerely doubt AARP lobbied Wendy's to knock a dime off a cup of coffee. :lol:
But don't they have a huge range of discounts for members? I remember reading an article that said that's why most people joined them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2014, 04:53:06 PM
But don't they have a huge range of discounts for members? I remember reading an article that said that's why most people joined them.
I'm sure they do. But we were talking about senior citizen discounts, not AARP member discounts.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2014, 04:55:30 PMI'm sure they do. But we were talking about senior citizen discounts, not AARP member discounts.
Sure but I thought that may be how it started. An association of just old people negotiate discounts and then, over time, it becomes the norm to give discounts for old people (with extra ones still negotiated by that association). Same as student discounts often started with one universities student union negotiating local discounts.
The elderly aren't organised over here :ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2014, 04:58:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2014, 04:55:30 PMI'm sure they do. But we were talking about senior citizen discounts, not AARP member discounts.
Sure but I thought that may be how it started. An association of just old people negotiate discounts and then, over time, it becomes the norm to give discounts for old people (with extra ones still negotiated by that association). Same as student discounts often started with one universities student union negotiating local discounts.
The elderly aren't organised over here :ph34r:
The Tory party? :hmm:
National Trust :contract:
My dad's been running a personal boycott against the National Trust for years. None of us know why.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2014, 04:58:06 PM
Sure but I thought that may be how it started. An association of just old people negotiate discounts and then, over time, it becomes the norm to give discounts for old people (with extra ones still negotiated by that association). Same as student discounts often started with one universities student union negotiating local discounts.
The elderly aren't organised over here :ph34r:
I'm close to 100% certain that senior citizen discounts long predate the creation of AARP.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2014, 05:03:15 PM
National Trust :contract:
My dad's been running a personal boycott against the National Trust for years. None of us know why.
:lol:
Then again the focus of the national trust on toff's housing is equally baffling to me.
For instance there's a rather nice Dorset iron age hillfort about 15 miles from here, Badbury Rings, when they did some restoration work/landscaping of it, they chose to re-plant the trees and avenues some local 'worthy' had planted on it's top in the 18-19th century.
These now completely block the viewpoints from the top and disfigure it in comparison with what it would have looked like for much of it's history. <_<
I remember pissing off my grandmother when I was a little kid and she had taken me to some event by loudly pleading with her to get the senior discount for herself, since she had probably just turned 55. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2014, 03:25:47 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 09, 2014, 03:18:33 PM
I don't like this trend of old people getting things for free just for having lived a long time. In most of Canada they get something like a 25% discount on bus passes and that's bad enough. Completely free is ridiculous.
Dude, tell me about it. Today I went to Wendy's for lunch and this old bag came in with a less-old bag and kept shouting to her "MAKE SURE THEY RING IT UP AS A SENIOR DRINK!" while less oldy ordered. Then she wasted more of the cashier's time by showing an old receipt from like six months ago where she wasn't charged for a senior drink and demanding a refund. :bleeding: Meanwhile people who are actually in a hurry were standing around waiting...
Poor baby. You want a bottle?
Oh I had already gotten my food so I didn't care in this particular instance. :)
Quote from: mongers on April 09, 2014, 05:10:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2014, 05:03:15 PM
National Trust :contract:
My dad's been running a personal boycott against the National Trust for years. None of us know why.
:lol:
Then again the focus of the national trust on toff's housing is equally baffling to me.
For instance there's a rather nice Dorset iron age hillfort about 15 miles from here, Badbury Rings, when they did some restoration work/landscaping of it, they chose to re-plant the trees and avenues some local 'worthy' had planted on it's top in the 18-19th century.
These now completely block the viewpoints from the top and disfigure it in comparison with what it would have looked like for much of it's history. <_<
:bleeding:
I guess posh tea rooms pay more than celtic rock arrangments. :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2014, 05:03:15 PM
National Trust :contract:
My dad's been running a personal boycott against the National Trust for years. None of us know why.
They are remarkably evil.
Most of their teashops are too poncey to sell chips for example :mad:
Sometimes the aura of middlebrow middleclass smugness given off at their sites is so choking that my long dormant inner radical stirs and I am tempted by the thought of bloody revolution :mad:
I visited their website. They look so wholesome like a public version of the Disney Corporation...hence their obvious evilness.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 13, 2014, 07:31:24 AM
Sometimes the aura of middlebrow middleclass smugness given off at their sites is so choking that my long dormant inner radical stirs and I am tempted by the thought of bloody revolution :mad:
:lol:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 13, 2014, 07:31:24 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 09, 2014, 05:03:15 PM
National Trust :contract:
My dad's been running a personal boycott against the National Trust for years. None of us know why.
They are remarkably evil.
Most of their teashops are too poncey to sell chips for example :mad:
Sometimes the aura of middlebrow middleclass smugness given off at their sites is so choking that my long dormant inner radical stirs and I am tempted by the thought of bloody revolution :mad:
Nothing wrong with that.
I keep thinking about who'd be first up against the wall while I cast my moderate ballot in elections.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27273672
:whistle: