UKMT May: Elections! (which won't fix anything)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT May: Elections! (which won't fix anything)

Rude Dude With Tude: Apr 19, 2007; Your President approves this text.

Re: trainchat privatisation times http://leavesontheline.tumblr.com/post/3487259985/why-privatisation-sucks this is only the relevant bit from
Bozza's awesome effortpost but it's all worth reading at the link

Bozza posted:

How about then, a fully nationalised system? (aka Bring Back British Rail!)

BR of the late 80s was a fantastically efficient, well run company which should have been left alone and had money literally thrown at it. There I said it, and pinned my colours to the mast.

Let me start by telling you why, before we critique how this can be reapplied in the 21st century, which is a far more interesting prospect.

The 1980s for BR brought a lot of challenges, not least one Maggie Thatcher. Though Thatcher wasn’t exactly wild for privatising the railway (she was a scientist after all, even if she was an awful sociopath), people could see the writing on the wall as parts of the non-operational business were systematically sold off, often to the nationalised rail operators of other countries! It also saw BR’s budget cut, and pressure increased to cover more of the cost of the network through ticket price rises.

The BR board panicked and in 1983, ordered a vast, sweeping restructuring which turned the bloated ex-Big 4 regions into the more streamlined ‘Sectors’. Express services were made into the famous ‘InterCity’ brand, south east and London commuter routes became ‘Network SouthEast’ and everywhere else became ‘Regional Railways’, non-passenger stuff went to ‘Railfreight’ and ‘Parcels’ (who are fairly self explanatory).

The sectors stripped out the bullshit of the Big 4, focusing on the business aspirations of three major subsets of passengers, and enhancing their services and requesting engineering developments where needed. Engineering functions (maintenance, enhancements, renewals) operated both integrated directly into their local sector, but also within their national engineering functions, thus the Head of Enhancement Engineering for Network SouthEast would report to both the Head of Network SouthEast and the Head of Enhancement Engineering, meaning that joined up thinking was applied throughout the nation. BR really cut a lot of fat during the 80s despite rather harsh financial pressures put on it by the government.

BR suffered from only one major problem during this time, and that was budget. BR received an annual budget, which had to be allocated between maintenance, enhancements, renewals and day-to-day operating costs, and not receiving any sort of long term investment.

It is hard to plan a large scale resignalling scheme (which will take at least a couple of years to design and probably at its most efficient a year to build, test and commission) when you only know where the money is coming from for the next 12 months. Long term vision was virtually impossible without ringfenced money (this was how the electrification of the East Coast Main Line was achieved, for instance, by direct government investment) so a short term ‘patch and make do’ approach was taken rather than big investments which would have made a real difference.

When people argue about how efficient BR was, this is the era they use. If this model had been kept, but with five year budget allocations like NR receives through huge government consultation about what it needs and why, the British Rail network would look vastly different to how it does today. For one thing, the BR HQ Signal Engineering team wouldn’t have been sold a packet of magic beans like the dynamic business leaders who ran Railtrack were on the technology for the West Coast Mainline upgrades (this is perhaps a story for another day).

I, as you can probably tell, am all for the return of this model. However, unless we literally tell the TOCs et al to get hosed, this won’t happen. You would literally have to renationalise the entire asset again, probably at huge cost, which will then gently caress the Department for Transport’s budget for the next century.

So, getting to crux of this history lesson, I propose a new approach to nationalisation. Network Rail is a great place to start; it currently owns all the infrastructure and has built up in the last several years a lot of engineering expertise. This needs to be expanded on and grown back to the levels BR had, with contractors used to prop up big engineering jobs, and also return to their more natural environment of developing new technologies (lots of money in this if anyone is interested!) with central guidance.

The first thing the government needs to do to make this plan work is simple. Get back our loving trains! Either buy back or order new builds of rolling stock and systematically block the RoSCoS out of the market, because these are the biggest arseholes in the whole bloody set-up. This will require long-term planning and investment from government that must be free from meddling or it won’t work.

Secondly, create a new TOC under either a similar model to Network Rail, or perhaps as a mutual. The latter was actually suggested, by an alliance of the three big railway unions (ASLEF, the RMT and the TSSA, who are collectively perhaps worthy of their own article) as an option for running the currently nationalised East Coast franchise, which operates under this model currently, but with profits heading straight to the DfT. This was unsurprisingly blocked by the government for bullshit reasons so some other bus company which may or may not donate large quantities of money to the Labour or Tory Party can take it over instead.

In this fantasy world, this TOC will then inherit the franchises one by one as the current ones run out, and we will end up with a pseudo-nationalised TOC working for a pseudo-nationalised Infrastructure Controller (Network Rail). We could seriously leave it here quite frankly, as most of the bullshit between the TOCs and NR is legal wrangling, with no respect for overall vision for the future of the network, as it is short-term profits over long-term investments and gain.

In keeping with EU competition rules about open access, this will also allow small operators to bid for access from NR for specials which can’t be provided by the nationalised TOC. The best way to think of this is that the NHS provides you core healthcare, but if you want to get something fancy that is outside of its budget, you have to go private. This is how I envisage services to the continent beginning, but it could also work the other way, with the nationalised TOC being able to expand into the European markets through an era of interoperability that is beginning to emerge through the European Rail Authority.

# ? May 28, 2014 00:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 09:31

ronya: Nov 8, 2010; I'm the normal one.

You hate ridden fucks will regret your words when you eventually grow up.

Peace.

he doesn't understand why there is some ringfenced money and some that isn't for long-term infrastructure projects at all. Ringfencing indicates the maximal extent to which the present government (1) feels able to believe that responsible contractors, and in particular BR/Railtrack/Network Rail, are not straightforwardly bullshitting to the cabinet in the full belief that the railway unions and the middle England riders both will deflect any attempt to probe for real numbers, and (2) is actually able to form a tenuous political will in favour. The fragmentation of funding goes with fragmentation of support for different elements of running a national railway.

Electrification could be granted ringfenced funding because it so happens that every major stakeholder was, and generally remains, in favour. But it can't be extended to the rest of rail administration and there are deeper reasons for this.

Britain isn't a place that runs five year plans or - heaven forbid - twenty or thirty year plans over projected population growth and residency patterns, which are obviously necessary for sane rail planning to begin with. So that's off the table. He can complain about short-termism but frankly that's all that Britain's contemporary politics can handle, so short-termism it is. This isn't the era where a report to parliament on rail policy can dominate thinking uncontested for decades, because there are too many angry people if a report happens to come to conclusions they dislike, and those people are prepared to take national politics hostage until the long-term policy is changed. But then politics shifts as it inevitably does to favour new stakeholders and the "long-term" policy is amended again and again, so what's the drat point of pretending it was a long-term policy?

Why commit hundreds of millions of pounds on railway expansion if in five years a railway Twyford Down - you know it's all too plausible, just see the noise around HS2 - can irreversibly scuttle any investment for a generation? You can't sit and talk as if you're a 1950s transport planner because there's no 1950s central planner any more, the DfT can create 'plans' but these are just projections which it has no power to realize, and everyone knows it. The inglorious slow decline of BR was itself fraught by fare hike opposition and industrial disputes taking every imaginable issue related to rail planning hostage, right up until the previously-unimaginable threat of privatization came into view and the stakeholders picked something else to squabble over, this isn't accidental.

ronya fucked around with this message at 06:58 on May 28, 2014

# ? May 28, 2014 06:30

kingturnip: Apr 18, 2008

ronya posted:

Britain isn't a place that runs five year plans or - heaven forbid - twenty or thirty year plans over projected population growth and residency patterns, which are obviously necessary for sane rail planning to begin with. So that's off the table. He can complain about short-termism but frankly that's all that Britain's contemporary politics can handle, so short-termism it is.

Except, as he points out, Network Rail receive their funding in 5-year chunks based on what the perceived areas for development in those five years will be.
If short-termism is unacceptable, it's only unacceptable to politicians - the public moan about the Tube having weekly maintenance, but once you point out the alternative is having a line completely out of service for a couple of weeks at a time, they shut up. Make the case, back it up; there's no more to it than that.

In the last couple of months, we've heard about this new Garden City that'll be built somewhere near London. That's not short-termism, that's the Government identifying a problem based on "projected population growth and residency patterns" (as you put it) and developing a strategy to deal with it. Obviously, in this case it's pissing in the wind, but that's this Coalition's speciality and doesn't nullify the fact that long-term planning does take place.

# ? May 28, 2014 07:20

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

Lord Twisted posted:

Does anyone have any convenient links to how much either
A) Afghanistan
B) Iraq
C) 2008-> bailouts

Cost? I did some Googling but found conflicting figures. I know it's not something that can be precisely quantified but it's useful to show to people as a 'these are why we're in the shitter, not scroungers or immigrants or Europeans' argument.

IIRC for the wars around �40bn over 10 years of spending over and above the normal peacetime budget, but excluding costs of things like aftercare for wounded soldiers and civilian aid. That's actually only about 10% over the existing budget for those years, although that budget can certainly be said to be bloated in a post-Cold-War era.

The bailouts are much harder to figure because the vast majority of "spending" came either from the Bank of England printing money (which costs us nothing directly, although the fake liquidity certainly has a massive cost to the UK economy as anyone trying to buy a house can tell you) or in underwriting inter-bank loans (which, because none of the banks collapsed, hasn't cost us anything). Even the direct central Government spending of around �40bn on ~~nationalising~~ injecting capital into banks comes with an asterisk in that we'll probably be able to recoup most of that money - if not make a profit - when we sell the shares on.

# ? May 28, 2014 07:23

haakman: May 5, 2011

Casts 'Summon Bozza'...

# ? May 28, 2014 07:33

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

winegums posted:

If UKIP do swing wild left with their economic policies,

You might as well ask if the sun does rise in the west tomorrow.

# ? May 28, 2014 08:46

thehustler: Apr 17, 2004; I am very curious about this little crescendo

haakman posted:

Casts 'Summon Bozza'...

Bozza appears, wielding a +2 level crossings post.

# ? May 28, 2014 09:16

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

Some of you actually voted just last week for a party that has renationalising the railways in its manifesto; the Greens.

Caroline 'scab' Lucas even introduced a Private Members Bill calling for the same.

# ? May 28, 2014 09:31

Bozza: Mar 5, 2004; "I'm a really useful engine!"

haakman posted:

Casts 'Summon Bozza'...

ronya posted:

load of old shite

This is quite a funny post because this time yesterday morning I was in the Western Route Strategic Planning Technical Working Group (snappy title) working out the constraints which need to be overcome to deliver the 2040 railway. To say you can't have long term vision and strategy when delivering rail projects is both massively wrong and not feasible - as I point out in the post Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pasted the planning and design phases of these works can take years.

Before moving onto my new job in March I was the signalling responsible design engineer for Liverpool Lime Street and we had just completed a years worth of work to completely remodel and resignal the station, and that year was to get from concept to Approval in Principle. Detailed design hasn't started yet, and the thing is getting built in 2016 or 17 I think. This was also an interesting project because the design was delivered totally internally in terms of major railway disciplines (p-way, ole, signalling).

Network Rail currently recieves funding in 5 year blocks, the control periods. We've just entered CP5 running from 2014 to 2019. You can see the plan here about the work we are delivering http://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/delivery-plans/control-period-5/ in this block. As part of the broader funding strategy, there's also money included in that block grant from government to pay for minor renewals and maintenance works and for the design works to start looking at things that get built in CP6.

I recently secured funding for a major (�104m) resignalling from the ORR, which is being accelerated from CP6 into CP5 using private finance. Network Rail is taking on the debt and a private party is servicing that debt until the CP6 determination can pay it off.

The benefit of running the entire industry on this sort of model is that it makes long term workbanks more manageable, particularly where there is a skills deficit (signalling installers / testers usually, but also rolling stock construction in the wider industry) and also allows for you to refresh stuff like rolling stock etc at a reasonable rate which creates stable jobs.

The major benefit of nationalistation would be the elimination of Schedule 8/16 delay minutes which creates an antagonistic relationship between TOC and infrastructure manager. This could be eliminated in the private sector but it would be virtually impossible in the current industry structure - though there a couple of good examples where this is being done on the sly. Firstly, with Directly Operated Railways on East Coast handing back their profits to the DfT, which then goes back into NR usually, so while inefficient, it's not getting creamed off by shareholders, and secondly in Wessex where Network Rail are in a deep corporate alliance with South West Trains as this allows the day to day operations to be more joined up.

The natural expansion of both of these relationships is to make it one railway again - under government control. Reasons for not doing this: fear of union power I think, the RMT becomes the most powerful trade union in the country. Then again, we broadly have better industrial relations on the main line railway compared to the tube, particularly in Network Rail. I know the TOCs suffer a bit, but that's cos ASLEF are king and don't take any poo poo. The RMT is already supremely powerful in terms of industrial muscles within the industry, so the concept of a joined up industry with militant and well supported union probably makes a Tory (of blue, red or yellow sort) wet himself.

# ? May 28, 2014 10:16

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Cerv posted:

You might as well ask if the sun does rise in the west tomorrow.

Except its exactly what happened with the Front National in the late 80s and 90s, when it started to attract the votes of the urban workers suddenly experiencing de-industrialization. Le Pen sr., who previously was a staunch free-marketer moved towards a weird mix of the old policy with new pro-welfare elements. Marine is an outspoken opponent of globalization and has no qualms about putting forward protectionist and nationalist economic arguments. Now UKIP =/= FN, but there is precedent (and not only in France) about anti-immigration, conservative parties running to the left economically once they start to catch the votes of disaffected supporters of traditional parties, who are uncomfortable with new elements in society etc. and see themselves as being displaced, both socially and economically.

# ? May 28, 2014 10:41

thehustler: Apr 17, 2004; I am very curious about this little crescendo

BBC News has a little feature: Why I voted UKIP

Some of the responses are hilarious

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27584237

Some idiot posted:

But with Farage, he seems to be an ordinary geezer that you can have a conversation with in the pub, and have a good debate.

# ? May 28, 2014 10:50

Renaissance Robot: Oct 10, 2010; Bite my furry metal ass

Bozza posted:

Western Route Strategic Planning Technical Working Group (snappy title)

WestRo SPlaTWoG (don't pretend you don't love those 20th century style abbreviations)

# ? May 28, 2014 10:54

ANYTHING YOU SOW: Nov 7, 2009

Lord Twisted posted:

Does anyone have any convenient links to how much either
A) Afghanistan
B) Iraq
C) 2008-> bailouts

Cost? I did some Googling but found conflicting figures. I know it's not something that can be precisely quantified but it's useful to show to people as a 'these are why we're in the shitter, not scroungers or immigrants or Europeans' argument.

This study was published today:

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a 'failure' costing �29bn

# ? May 28, 2014 11:25

Alecto: Feb 11, 2014

Turns out that poll of key lib dem marginals was commissioned by Lord Oakeshott, and Vince is either not happy or having to pretend he's not happy. What's perhaps more interesting is that it was conducted before the elections, so given the timing of the leak, more a calculated effort to oust Clegg than a panicking peer. Summer conference could be exciting (but probably disappointing, tbh).

# ? May 28, 2014 11:29

Bozza: Mar 5, 2004; "I'm a really useful engine!"

Renaissance Robot posted:

WestRo SPlaTWoG (don't pretend you don't love those 20th century style abbreviations)

My entire Outlook calendar looks like this :negative:

# ? May 28, 2014 11:33

marktheando: Nov 4, 2006

It's pretty amazing to me that the Lib Dems still don't seem to realise how doomed they are. They think stabbing yet another leader in the back will save them?

# ? May 28, 2014 11:40

Seaside Loafer: Feb 7, 2012; Waiting for a train, I needed a shit. You won't bee-lieve what happened next

I know this is a silly notion but explain why to me the government couldnt just say to the rail companies gently caress off we own all of this now and guess what we arent even going to buy your shares out, what are you going to do about it? We have an army.

# ? May 28, 2014 11:41

The Supreme Court: Feb 25, 2010; Pirate World: Nearly done!

Seaside Loafer posted:

I know this is a silly notion but explain why to me the government couldnt just say to the rail companies gently caress off we own all of this now and guess what we arent even going to buy your shares out, what are you going to do about it? We have an army.

Financial collapse? Public revolt? Global condemnation?

# ? May 28, 2014 11:44

ronya: Nov 8, 2010; I'm the normal one.

You hate ridden fucks will regret your words when you eventually grow up.

Peace.

Bozza posted:

This is quite a funny post because this time yesterday morning I was in the Western Route Strategic Planning Technical Working Group (snappy title) working out the constraints which need to be overcome to deliver the 2040 railway. To say you can't have long term vision and strategy when delivering rail projects is both massively wrong and not feasible - as I point out in the post Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pasted the planning and design phases of these works can take years.

Before moving onto my new job in March I was the signalling responsible design engineer for Liverpool Lime Street and we had just completed a years worth of work to completely remodel and resignal the station, and that year was to get from concept to Approval in Principle. Detailed design hasn't started yet, and the thing is getting built in 2016 or 17 I think. This was also an interesting project because the design was delivered totally internally in terms of major railway disciplines (p-way, ole, signalling).

Network Rail currently recieves funding in 5 year blocks, the control periods. We've just entered CP5 running from 2014 to 2019. You can see the plan here about the work we are delivering http://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/delivery-plans/control-period-5/ in this block. As part of the broader funding strategy, there's also money included in that block grant from government to pay for minor renewals and maintenance works and for the design works to start looking at things that get built in CP6.

I recently secured funding for a major (�104m) resignalling from the ORR, which is being accelerated from CP6 into CP5 using private finance. Network Rail is taking on the debt and a private party is servicing that debt until the CP6 determination can pay it off.

The benefit of running the entire industry on this sort of model is that it makes long term workbanks more manageable, particularly where there is a skills deficit (signalling installers / testers usually, but also rolling stock construction in the wider industry) and also allows for you to refresh stuff like rolling stock etc at a reasonable rate which creates stable jobs.

The major benefit of nationalistation would be the elimination of Schedule 8/16 delay minutes which creates an antagonistic relationship between TOC and infrastructure manager. This could be eliminated in the private sector but it would be virtually impossible in the current industry structure - though there a couple of good examples where this is being done on the sly. Firstly, with Directly Operated Railways on East Coast handing back their profits to the DfT, which then goes back into NR usually, so while inefficient, it's not getting creamed off by shareholders, and secondly in Wessex where Network Rail are in a deep corporate alliance with South West Trains as this allows the day to day operations to be more joined up.

The natural expansion of both of these relationships is to make it one railway again - under government control. Reasons for not doing this: fear of union power I think, the RMT becomes the most powerful trade union in the country. Then again, we broadly have better industrial relations on the main line railway compared to the tube, particularly in Network Rail. I know the TOCs suffer a bit, but that's cos ASLEF are king and don't take any poo poo. The RMT is already supremely powerful in terms of industrial muscles within the industry, so the concept of a joined up industry with militant and well supported union probably makes a Tory (of blue, red or yellow sort) wet himself.

You are a senior engineer, that's why from your perspective budgets and mandates for committing those funds appear as manna from heaven, and any ensuing disputes generated during implementation of an approved plan, intended or otherwise, are straightforwardly Not Your Problem. Well, true, but it's still a problem, even if it's not your problem.

... and payments to shareholders involve 'creaming off' funds, but I guess interest payments on the debt of private financing is totally different, which is a curious way of looking at raising capital.

I do agree with you - there is fear of union power, in particular union power acting in a coalition with passenger groups demanding lower fares and fewer service disruptions (labour, technological, or otherwise). Even without reviving BR's obfuscatory approach to public accounting, this still a very potent alliance and unfortunately the rail needs subsidies to operate on a normal day-to-day basis, never mind to meet infrastructural mandates, so one can't reasonably insist on the rail meeting turnover without subsidies (Tory fantasies aside). This creates a permanent problem in trying to fend off demands for more subsidies whilst trying to pick through a web of highly contentious messaging from different stakeholders, none of whom seem prone to acting in good faith. The costly delay of the Westinghouse moving block signalling project on the Jubilee Line illustrated this very well: from a management or regulatory perspective, it's straightforwardly difficult to tell whether a claim that the technology wouldn't work is because of the RMT - or engineers sympathetic to the RMT - campaigning to shield signaller careers from automation, or whether it really wouldn't work.

The argument that BR's board finally got its act together when threatened with elimination - not just privatization, as an aside, but the Thatcher govt publicly and seriously considering pushing through a second Beeching - isn't a persuasive argument for the idea that such a non-lovely board is created by being willed into existence. Surely the threats are relevant? The main constraint on BR beforehand was dealing with the frequently-issued threats of a 1982-like crippling strike, which in any case finally happened in 1982. Insofar as the real mandate of BR was to keep ASLEF quiescent with a minimum of funding, it did excellently; threats to strike were mostly successfully negotiated away until the 1982 flexibility strike. That is, BR didn't become efficient through a mysterious and miraculous internal change, it became efficient through shifts in external conditions changing its mandate away from satisfying stakeholders toward pursuing efficiency - in particular Thatcherite threats to fire striking ASLEF workers combined with a period of particularly intense disunity amongst militants and railway strikers, under the Thatcher govt publicly maneuvering itself toward a trump card of practically eliminating the rail altogether if continued industrial action was too insoluble. You can't maintain this state of siege on British civil society on a permanent basis, it'd destroy Britain. But by the same token you can't also expect a permanently nationalized BR, or the RMT/TSSA/ASLEF stakeholders, to behave in this terrified manner. The perennial complaint of RMT is that the cleaner's strikes are currently completely ineffectual because Network Rail sets the conditions, the station operators raises the revenue, and the contractor employs the cleaners, which leaves exactly nobody who can be effectively struck against.

You can't wave your hands and say "I want the late 1980s pre-privatisation BR board back" because a railway politics that isn't faced with the threat of imminent privatization/elimination would behave differently. A HS2 coalition of supporting stakeholders was only easy to assemble when it was all too plausible that no investment would be made at all, now that the investment is here suddenly they're all queuing up to be heroes standing up against the arrogance of London. You can't bind the unions to an agreement that, okay, well, we'll renationalize the rail and pour lots of investment into it, but only if you only stage as much disruption as you do now and no more. Or the passenger groups into agreeing, look, you have to keep supporting the investment even if the subnational CPRE is truly annoying to campaign against.

# ? May 28, 2014 11:46

Seaside Loafer: Feb 7, 2012; Waiting for a train, I needed a shit. You won't bee-lieve what happened next

The Supreme Court posted:

Financial collapse? Public revolt? Global condemnation?

Why?

# ? May 28, 2014 11:46

tooterfish: Jul 13, 2013

I know this is a silly notion but explain why to me the government couldn't just come to your house and say gently caress off we own all of this now and guess what we aren't even going to buy it, what are you going to do about it? We have an army.

Seaside Loafer posted:

Why?

Why don't you have a wee think about the implications there, Idi Armin.

You really want to live in a country where the government can just take what the gently caress they want without even a passing nod to the rule of law or due process?

tooterfish fucked around with this message at 11:51 on May 28, 2014

# ? May 28, 2014 11:48

Seaside Loafer: Feb 7, 2012; Waiting for a train, I needed a shit. You won't bee-lieve what happened next

Well yeah but I'm talking about a vital infrastructure used by millions of people which is being abused by arseholes, not your house. Its a bit different.

quote:

You really want to live in a country where the government can just take what the gently caress they want without even a passing nod to the rule of law or due process?

In this case I wouldnt really have a problem. They are parasites.

Seaside Loafer fucked around with this message at 11:55 on May 28, 2014

# ? May 28, 2014 11:52

XMNN: Apr 26, 2008; I am incredibly stupid

marktheando posted:

It's pretty amazing to me that the Lib Dems still don't seem to realise how doomed they are. They think stabbing yet another leader in the back will save them?

Is there any actual advantage to the Lib Dems in keeping Clegg until the election? It's not like they can develop a worse reputation for being backstabbing ratfucking bastards and if anything giving him a kicking could only make them more popular. I doubt many people will shed a tear for poor betrayed Nick Clegg. It would also save them the further humiliation of having their leader lose his seat, and I can't see him surviving long after the election, whatever the outcome, so keeping him around is only really delaying the inevitable.

They're heading for electoral disaster regardless, it seems like they might as well throw Clegg to the wolves if it might save them a couple of seats.

To be fair, this is all massively coloured by my disgust for Nick Clegg. There's a reason the lowest circle of hell is reserved for people like him.

# ? May 28, 2014 11:57

The Supreme Court: Feb 25, 2010; Pirate World: Nearly done!

It's not complicated. As soon as someone starts taking stuff with an army, everyone that doesn't have an army is going to want to sell their stuff before it gets taken. Everyone panic selling kills the markets, and with it the economy.

# ? May 28, 2014 11:57

Gort: Aug 18, 2003; Good day what ho cup of tea

marktheando posted:

It's pretty amazing to me that the Lib Dems still don't seem to realise how doomed they are. They think stabbing yet another leader in the back will save them?

I'm interested - was there any kind of outcry from within the Lib Dems when they decided to team up with the tories and doom their party, or did they all go along with their own destruction more or less willingly?

# ? May 28, 2014 11:57

ronya: Nov 8, 2010; I'm the normal one.

You hate ridden fucks will regret your words when you eventually grow up.

Peace.

Seaside Loafer posted:

I know this is a silly notion but explain why to me the government couldnt just say to the rail companies gently caress off we own all of this now and guess what we arent even going to buy your shares out, what are you going to do about it? We have an army.

Well, so does Germany, which owns a healthy chunk of Deutsche Bahn, which owns Arriva Group, which runs Arriva Trains Wales, CrossCountry, etc. I don't think Germany is the majority owner, but it does own 40%. France and Quebec own chunks of Keolis, which own a minority chunk of Govia, who run London Midlands, Southern, Southeastern... you get the idea. I doubt gunboat diplomacy is nigh but there's still a lot of trade retaliation that goes on if you run around expropriating things willy-nilly.

Back in the 1980s there was some Tory and still-transitioning-to-New-Labour Labour discussion of the idea of pursuing privatization via such GLC formation and partial sales, but the idea died for complicated reasons. But a lot of other countries did pursue the model.

# ? May 28, 2014 11:59

Seaside Loafer: Feb 7, 2012; Waiting for a train, I needed a shit. You won't bee-lieve what happened next

The Supreme Court posted:

It's not complicated. As soon as someone starts taking stuff with an army, everyone that doesn't have an army is going to want to sell their stuff before it gets taken. Everyone panic selling kills the markets, and with it the economy.

The army mention was more of a semi-joke. I didnt make myself clear. Its the govenment, they can do what they want.

# ? May 28, 2014 12:01

The Supreme Court: Feb 25, 2010; Pirate World: Nearly done!

Replace "army" with "executive or legislative powers" and repeat.

# ? May 28, 2014 12:03

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Seaside Loafer posted:

I know this is a silly notion but explain why to me the government couldnt just say to the rail companies gently caress off we own all of this now and guess what we arent even going to buy your shares out, what are you going to do about it? We have an army.

minor issues like 'the rule of law'

# ? May 28, 2014 12:08

Jedit: Dec 10, 2011; Proudly supporting vanilla legends 1994-2014

Seaside Loafer posted:

In this case I wouldnt really have a problem. They are parasites.

Well done, you just opened the door to taking away unemployment benefits and pensions because people who aren't working are parasites.

# ? May 28, 2014 12:09

SybilVimes: Oct 29, 2011

Seaside Loafer posted:

The army mention was more of a semi-joke. I didnt make myself clear. Its the govenment, they can do what they want.

Except for the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act of 2004, that is.

# ? May 28, 2014 12:12

Lady Gaza: Nov 20, 2008

Doesn't compulsory purchase usually require compensation though? Rather than just seizing property?

# ? May 28, 2014 12:16

tooterfish: Jul 13, 2013

Jedit posted:

Well done, you just opened the door to taking away unemployment benefits and pensions because people who aren't working are parasites.

It's even simpler than that... the Idi Armin jibe wasn't exactly random.

# ? May 28, 2014 12:18

ronya: Nov 8, 2010; I'm the normal one.

You hate ridden fucks will regret your words when you eventually grow up.

Peace.

the threat of local expropriation and collapse in rule of order is overblown, it's a matter of size and confusion rather than principle, other countries can expropriate or extinguish British claims without everything exploding if the matter is sufficiently small and limited. See: Iceland and IceSave

# ? May 28, 2014 12:18

Touchdown Boy: Apr 1, 2007; I saw my friend there out on the field today, I asked him where he's going, he said "All the way."

I guess a better question would be 'Why cant the Government tell the rail companies they will be nationalised. The shareholders can either play along and cut a deal, or they will lose out by resisting it'?

I mean its not an unpopular position for the average joe. I doubt they would care as long as it continued to run and wasnt more expensive. People with vested interests will obviously hate it, because somehow the world is set up for them to make more money and nothing should hinder that.

# ? May 28, 2014 12:18

ronya: Nov 8, 2010; I'm the normal one.

You hate ridden fucks will regret your words when you eventually grow up.

Peace.

Touchdown Boy posted:

I guess a better question would be 'Why cant the Government tell the rail companies they will be nationalised. The shareholders can either play along and cut a deal, or they will lose out by resisting it'?

I mean its not an unpopular position for the average joe. I doubt they would care as long as it continued to run and wasnt more expensive.

the government presumably has to pay the shareholders for their shares, where do the funds come from?

# ? May 28, 2014 12:21

marktheando: Nov 4, 2006

Gort posted:

I'm interested - was there any kind of outcry from within the Lib Dems when they decided to team up with the tories and doom their party, or did they all go along with their own destruction more or less willingly?

I don't remember much of one. I lost some respect for Charles Kennedy when the rumours about him leaving the party in protest at the coalition turned out to be untrue.

# ? May 28, 2014 12:22

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

If anyone didn't read that "Why I voted UKIP" article just pretend it was "because I'm clueless" over and over.

One woman asking why immigrants can't only get out what they put in, so there are apparently still enough people who don't have a clue that immigrants are free cash for the rest of us to be notable.

ronya posted:

the government presumably has to pay the shareholders for their shares, where do the funds come from?

Oh this one is easy. We print our own money, do you have any idea what that even means?

Debt doesn't loving matter in national economics.

# ? May 28, 2014 12:23

thehustler: Apr 17, 2004; I am very curious about this little crescendo

Oakeshott has gone

# ? May 28, 2014 12:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 09:31

Touchdown Boy: Apr 1, 2007; I saw my friend there out on the field today, I asked him where he's going, he said "All the way."

ronya posted:

the government presumably has to pay the shareholders for their shares, where do the funds come from?

We grow some more money trees like we always do?

This sort of question that presumes the Government has no money, and no way to get more, and worse any spending is completely wasted as soon as it happens. There would be a return on the investment because its not as if the railways make no money (because if they didnt then there would be no private investment would there?).

# ? May 28, 2014 12:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT May: Elections! (which won't fix anything)

«‹›89 »