Sir Nick Clegg

Dolph said:
It depends, most new local roads in the UK aren't paid for by the state...

The key part though is how much control over the roads the state wants, if they want to control routes, building etc, then the state will have to pay for it. It doesn't follow that roads could not be built or commissioned by private groups or individuals.

A better question is how much control should the state exert over transport and why. Don't start with the default of the state being in control of it, justify why they should be.
Click to expand...

Because the private sector has proved incapable of running our public transport
 
antijoke said:
Do those who are sayin Corbyn is so utter ****, think that what the conservatives have done to this country is a fantastic thing?
Click to expand...

Problem is people seem to be locked into that it is a binary option - which in some ways it is due to the lack of wider vision amongst the general population and current state of our political system :(

I can't see Corbyn being a better option - even assuming under Labour they did just go for the kind of social democracy seen in some parts of Europe, etc. with the potential given the views and backgrounds of some of the current Labour movers and shakers to turn into something very worse.

A lot of their manifesto looks good and "costed" on paper but when you break it down it relies heavily on people continuing the same old practises when you change the rules and that is simply wishful thinking so I don't think they'd manage to finance their plans to the extent needed to make a difference - otherwise and sans-Corbyn, etc. I'd look at them more positively.
 
Gigabit said:
Because the private sector has proved incapable of running our public transport
Click to expand...

So did the public sector. British rail was awful, British Leyland was awful, most council run bus services were awful...

It isn't a public vs private issue. Stop looking for quick magic fixes, especially ones that failed when they were done before.
 
Dolph said:
So did the public sector. British rail was awful, British Leyland was awful, most council run bus services were awful...

It isn't a public vs private issue. Stop looking for quick magic fixes, especially ones that failed when they were done before.
Click to expand...

British Rail was underfunded on purpose, to make it appealing for privatisation. Surprise when you underfund something it runs like total *****.

And the private sector is hardly any better. Prices have gone up not down, trains still the same in many cases, money going to foreign Governments rather than ours...
 
Gigabit said:
British Rail was underfunded on purpose, to make it appealing for privatisation. Surprise when you underfund something it runs like total *****.

And the private sector is hardly any better. Prices have gone up not down, trains still the same in many cases, money going to foreign Governments rather than ours...
Click to expand...

Do you even know why the railways were nationalised in the first place?
 
Rroff said:
Problem is people seem to be locked into that it is a binary option - which in some ways it is due to the lack of wider vision amongst the general population and current state of our political system :(

I can't see Corbyn being a better option - even assuming under Labour they did just go for the kind of social democracy seen in some parts of Europe, etc. with the potential given the views and backgrounds of some of the current Labour movers and shakers to turn into something very worse.

A lot of their manifesto looks good and "costed" on paper but when you break it down it relies heavily on people continuing the same old practises when you change the rules and that is simply wishful thinking so I don't think they'd manage to finance their plans to the extent needed to make a difference - otherwise and sans-Corbyn, etc. I'd look at them more positively.
Click to expand...

Oh I totally get that, but my opinion is that they are both as **** as each other, Conservatives are 100% responsible for the country as it stands today, and yet people are deriding labour and Corbyn as somehow being worse, it’s just hilarious to me as someone doesn’t have a hat in either ring that supporters of May and the Cons can claim Corbyn would be any worse.
 
antijoke said:
Oh I totally get that, but my opinion is that they are both as **** as each other, Conservatives are 100% responsible for the country as it stands today, and yet people are deriding labour and Corbyn as somehow being worse, it’s just hilarious to me as someone doesn’t have a hat in either ring that supporters of May and the Cons can claim Corbyn would be any worse.
Click to expand...

Given the backgrounds of Corbyn and some close to him despite a more moderate tone of late I'd be wary of where things would go under them - a more radical left heading would be far more damaging to the country in the end than the current Tory trajectory. Maybe we'd be surprised who knows but there is a saying about leopards and spots that is far more often right than wrong - especially when we sometimes get glimpses of Corbyn's real position putting ideology before country.
 
Rroff said:
Given the backgrounds of Corbyn and some close to him despite a more moderate tone of late I'd be wary of where things would go under them - a more radical left heading would be far more damaging to the country in the end than the current Tory trajectory. Maybe we'd be surprised who knows but there is a saying about leopards and spots that is far more often right than wrong - especially when we sometimes get glimpses of Corbyn's real position putting ideology before country.
Click to expand...

But is it really any worse than the ideology that the current bunch of inept conservatives have and the path they have set us on and continue to walk us down?
 
antijoke said:
But is it really any worse than the ideology that the current bunch of inept conservatives have and the path they have set us on and continue to walk us down?
Click to expand...

Potentially - neither are particularly attractive outcomes. One might lead to a widening of the gulf between those better off and worse off in this country but keeps much of the wealth in this country while the other unchecked tends to gut the wealth of the country as well as destroy society somewhat ironically. One of those is potentially easier to recover from than the other.
 
Well subsidies into the railways have increased hugely since privatisation. So I conclude that had BR had those subsidies it would have run immensely better than it did. The Government favours motorists over the railways, how do you explain a freeze on fuel duty but an increase in rail fares every year hmm?
 
Dolph said:
So did the public sector. British rail was awful, British Leyland was awful, most council run bus services were awful...
Click to expand...

Transport for London is publicly owned and incredibly successful. Suburban lines taken over by TfL as part of London Overground have seen more regular services, new trains and greatly improved service.

What’s more, prices are easy to understand and tickets are flexible. I don’t have to worry about what line I take to work as they’re all covered by my season ticket.

You don’t have to look to the past to imagine what a successful publicly-owned transport system looks like. It’s happening in our capital right now.
 
Dolph said:
So did the public sector. British rail was awful, British Leyland was awful, most council run bus services were awful...
Click to expand...
Due to chronic underfunding by the government to give the appearance of poor management and deserving privatisation.
 
Gigabit said:
how do you explain a freeze on fuel duty but an increase in rail fares every year hmm?
Click to expand...

you're looking at these things way too simplistic to support your view and far too short sighted. what is the amount the government earn from fuel duty compared to rail? if lets say the price to the public should be £1 for whatever of fuel, and £1 for whatever of train usage 30 years ago. the government has put so much tax on fuel the cost to the public now for fuel is £120 for the same amount, while trains are £30. the last few years the government haven't increased that fuel tax, and you see that as a sign of them favouring motorists, completely ignoring that they've increase the tax so many more times than the rail fare.
 
Gigabit said:
Well subsidies into the railways have increased hugely since privatisation. So I conclude that had BR had those subsidies it would have run immensely better than it did. The Government favours motorists over the railways, how do you explain a freeze on fuel duty but an increase in rail fares every year hmm?
Click to expand...

So for the many, not the few is a mantra, not a principle then.
 
Tunney said:
Transport for London is publicly owned and incredibly successful. Suburban lines taken over by TfL as part of London Overground have seen more regular services, new trains and greatly improved service.

What’s more, prices are easy to understand and tickets are flexible. I don’t have to worry about what line I take to work as they’re all covered by my season ticket.

You don’t have to look to the past to imagine what a successful publicly-owned transport system looks like. It’s happening in our capital right now.
Click to expand...

And outside of London, where the economics of public transport are completely different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom