The labour Leader thread...

[[TW]Fox]

The same thing that happens when the firm loses a franchise to a rival at renewal time. They are mostly all large firms with many other interests, the majority of staff remain with the new operator. There have been numerous changes of operator over the years. The firms bid to run it for a fixed term, there is no right or expectations of renewal beyond that as a new competitive tender usually runs.

Network Rail is different.

 

[Tefal]

Network Rail is different.

but isnt network rail the one you're gonna have to nationalise to renationalise the railways?

 

[Jokester]

but isnt network rail the one you're gonna have to nationalise to renationalise the railways?

Network Rail is already state owned.

 

[Caged]

Network Rail is what happened to Railtrack after people realised that running rail infrastructure for profit results in important safety-related corners being cut.

 

[Tefal]

Network Rail is already state owned.

right ok, im confused so who owns what when it comes to railways.

are network rail a company, a division of government? do they have shares that are traded etc?

 

[[TW]Fox]

but isnt network rail the one you're gonna have to nationalise to renationalise the railways?

No, its already publicly held. When people talk abuur nationalizing its the passenger operating companies they refer to.

Freight is fully privately owned for the most part but I doubt that would change anyway.

 

[Caged]

They are a not-for-profit company owned by the state.

 

[McPhee]

I understand what you are saying but can you not see my point?

People can see your point. However, the problem is as others have said; you still need a similar number of workers at the bottom. There's also a danger of raising the bar for existing jobs - we have already seen this with the massive rise in graduates over the past decade. Many mundane office jobs now require 'a degree' (i.e. any degree) as a basic requirement, while in other areas there are so many qualified graduates that a Masters is now seen as necessary just to stand out from the crowd.

I'd like to see fair opportunity for all - for everyone to have the opportunity to fulfill their potential, but up-skilling everyone isn't the right answer.

There are two answers to tackling inequality; reduce the pay gap, or increase taxes on high earners to allow the state to redistribute wealth. At present, the opposite of both is happening. The pay gap is increasing. Taxes on the wealthy are falling. Wealth redistribution by the state is being cut. That isn't the basis of a fair society.

 

[fs123]

People can see your point. However, the problem is as others have said; you still need a similar number of workers at the bottom. There's also a danger of raising the bar for existing jobs - we have already seen this with the massive rise in graduates over the past decade. Many mundane office jobs now require 'a degree' (i.e. any degree) as a basic requirement, while in other areas there are so many qualified graduates that a Masters is now seen as necessary just to stand out from the crowd.

I'd like to see fair opportunity for all - for everyone to have the opportunity to fulfill their potential, but up-skilling everyone isn't the right answer.

There are two answers to tackling inequality; reduce the pay gap, or increase taxes on high earners to allow the state to redistribute wealth. At present, the opposite of both is happening. The pay gap is increasing. Taxes on the wealthy are falling. Wealth redistribution by the state is being cut. That isn't the basis of a fair society.

Well the tax credit cuts will further increase the rich/poor gap. Anyone who was working and getting a worthwhile topup with tax credits may now start to think whether it's worth working full time at all.

 

[FoxEye]

No, its already publicly held. When people talk abuur nationalizing its the passenger operating companies they refer to.

Freight is fully privately owned for the most part but I doubt that would change anyway.

They were just saying on the news tonight that privatisation of Network Rail is "on the cards".

 

[fs123]

They were just saying on the news tonight that privatisation of Network Rail is "on the cards".

I wonder if they got of whiff of what the Labour Party were going to announce and put out this 'news' to counter it.

 

[Duke]

Voters like you maybe. Labour like the Tory's cycle in and out of government, it's just a matter of time till this current Tory rabble gets kicked out.

Unfortunately people have short memories so yes it will always be Tory and Labour swapping in and out. Which wasn't such a bad thing (any one party for too long can never be great), but if Labour could keep spending in check this time, that'll be handy I voted Labour before but only as they were center and Tories were still sorting themselves out. No chance if they lurch to the left again, which has happened.

 

[Trifid]

This never happened because it's not possible to just move trains around the network and use them somewhere else.

Why not?

 

[Monkeynut]

Is it even legal in the EU to have a fully nationalized railway? Surely there's some competition clause, I'm pretty sure even DB in Germany have to compete for the franchise with other providers?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Why not?

Becaase the network has limited capacity and moving a train needs to be carefully planned or slotted into a crowded schedule to move it from point a to point b. I've been in power boxes up and down the country and it's incredibly involved/complicated to the untrained eye. On another note, signallers and power box supervisors deserve every penny of thier wage!

It's not like how you can just stick a driver on a coach and tell him to drive it to where it's needed.

TBH, I can't believe I'm having to explain it.

Is it even legal in the EU to have a fully nationalized railway? Surely there's some competition clause, I'm pretty sure even DB in Germany have to compete for the franchise with other providers?

It is if it's "total nationalisation" and if it's partial (like we have) grey areas can be worked around by using holding ompanies etc.

 

[Trifid]

Becaase the network has limited capacity and moving a train needs to be carefully planned or slotted into a crowded schedule to move it from point a to point b. I've been in power boxes up and down the country and it's incredibly involved/complicated to the untrained eye. On another note, signallers and power box supervisors deserve every penny of thier wage!

It's not like how you can just stick a driver on a coach and tell him to drive it to where it's needed.

TBH, I can't believe I'm having to explain it.

That is my point though. You can do it, I know you can do it because there are specially chartered trains that go around the country in a single journey. Obviously it will be better to do it at night or on the weekend due to the crowded schedule on the lines. You can also split trains up and move them by road, although obviously expensive to do.

 

[Caged]

Why not?

A third rail train won't work where the power is supplied overhead. A diesel train is pointlessly expensive to run on electrified lines and there isn't the infrastructure in place to fuel them.

This idea that TOCs can play off a couple of ROSCOs against each other to get the best price on rolling stock is a fairy tale.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

That is my point though. You can do it, I know you can do it because there are specially chartered trains that go around the country in a single journey. Obviously it will be better to do it at night or on the weekend due to the crowded schedule on the lines. You can also split trains up and move them by road, although obviously expensive to do.

Specially chartered trains that have had thier movement planned weeks if not months in advance.

Road transport for trains is stupidly expensive - it's not a viable method of working.

 

[Destination]

Remove the bottom 25% from tax, redistrubute the gap to the remainder, top weighted. And actually invest in the HMRC to collect owed/avided tax.

Negative income tax would be a good start.

We already have tax credits and child tax credits.
Your figures mean overall tax paid.
Not just income tax, they represent VAT, they represent duty on bought products.

Cigs and Alcohol. Duty is paid, no matter your wealth, your negative tax would make these items cost little to the poor. Consumer products, a poor person buying an iphone would pay little to no VAT or tax on it.

Let me just post this again.
Family, one person working, part time.
A family with 2 adults, and 2 children.
One of the adults goes out, and works, they work 30h hours a week, at the minimum wage. So this is any job, anywhere for 4 days a week.
Its reasonably negative tax already.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

We already have tax credits and child tax credits.
Your figures mean overall tax paid.
Not just income tax, they represent VAT, they represent duty on bought products.

Cigs and Alcohol. Duty is paid, no matter your wealth, your negative tax would make these items cost little to the poor. Consumer products, a poor person buying an iphone would pay little to no VAT or tax on it.

Let me just post this again.
Family, one person working, part time.
A family with 2 adults, and 2 children.
One of the adults goes out, and works, they work 30h hours a week, at the minimum wage. So this is any job, anywhere for 4 days a week.
Its reasonably negative tax already.

Where do you get the £9360 tax credits from?

My calc shows someone on £10140 per year gets £1773 in working tax credits and £3321 in child tax credits - and they're being severely cut soon anyway.