Damn! There goes a perfectly good train service…

Sponsored Links
People have to be reminded that most privately owned utilities/public services are subsidised by the taxpayer...

And also when those private companies go bust, then the taxpayer inevitably bails them out...

And could anyone who claims that energy supply is better under privatisation answer this simple question...

Why did the UK government promise over inflated per KW prices to a foreign company to build nuclear reactor(s) in the UK?
Because supply and generation are entirely separate and the country did not want to provide the huge upfront investment to build the capability.

Who else would have built them?
 
Sponsored Links
Because supply and generation are entirely separate and the country did not want to provide the huge upfront investment to build the capability.

Who else would have built them?
Did not want to or could not afford to?

Where did all the money and profits go ?
 
Are they the nationalised energy supplier ?
They were until deregulation.
Over the profitable routes maybe

What about over the majority of routes ?
Then package the good with the bad as I believe occurs already.
Did not want to or could not afford to?

Where did all the money and profits go ?
We had lost the capability. Something the previous government started to rectify.
 
They were until deregulation.
Not now then? Thought not
Then package the good with the bad as I believe occurs already.
Answers nothing about the unprofitable routes
We had lost the capability. Something the previous government started to rectify.
Made worse !
So where did all the profits go ?
Clue. Rich got richer, foreign investment came on for the cream.
 
If a route is unprofitable, the money to run it has to come from somewhere. Alternatively, the people using it should pay more.

The current model is other bus users subsidise the unprofitable routes. If you don't like that, you have to explain why someone has to pay for something that they don't need or use. (i.e. non-bus users)
 
If a route is unprofitable, the money to run it has to come from somewhere. Alternatively, the people using it should pay more.

The current model is other bus users subsidise the unprofitable routes. If you don't like that, you have to explain why someone has to pay for something that they don't need or use. (i.e. non-bus users)
Like fire engines, ambulances, schools etc.

It's called society
 
Let me phrase that another way.

The difference between privatised services and nationalised ones is competition. Competing isn’t a concern with nationalisation so being lean, providing good services and value for money isn’t a concern.

It made no sense to privatise the rail. But busses and energy have all resulted in better options.
thats a load of tosh

you conveniently ignore moral hazard, the train operators for example take govt contracts, take no risk as strikes are paid for by govt and they dotn care if they fail. Why do you think the TOCs change hands into foreign sovereign funds............because it profitable

and as for energy............how has it resulted in better options? most of energy suppliers have gone bust those remaining have set prices so high that its not wort having anything but variable rate tariff.
 
Who do you think provides better pricing and customer care:
British Gas or Octopus?

State run services are never hungry to innovate or drive better service. The consumer has to pay if its good or bad.
 
So, the delays were very little to do with Khan.
Yes, yes.
Same as crime in London has nothing to do with him, double city hall budget, ulez failure, division, met police and fire brigade under special measures...
All a big coincidence, nothing more...
Why don't you ask any tfl employee what their feelings were when crossrail screwed up the Elizabeth line and charged us an extra £4 billion with the emperor's blessing?
I did.
 
Why don't you ask any tfl employee what their feelings were when crossrail screwed up the Elizabeth line and charged us an extra £4 billion with the emperor's blessing?
I did.

£4 billion?
"Only" overspending by 25% is practically champagne-corks-a-poppin' levels of success, in UK capital project terms (y)

They'd been getting further and further behind with every passing day, from 2009 until Khan took office in 2016.

Unless you're naive / dumb enough to think that it was bob-on for the first 7 years...........
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top