Railway companies renationalised
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Corbyn should have explained his reasons for wanting to renationalise. I doubt if the current lot will do it long term. It's more a case of the gov taking up the losses the companies currently running it would face if they just carried on. If less profit these companies then pay less tax - oh dear as that aspect in real terms is what privatisation is all about so gov gets hit either way. The companies might also go broke if the gov does nothing.
No rail company makes a profit without government subsidies.
Privatisation:
A nationalised business has a turnover of 1M.
It costs 1.25M to run.
Government will give you 0.5M to run it for them.
I know Government could save 0.25M by running it themselves but that is against our principles.
Privatisation:
A nationalised business has a turnover of 1M.
It costs 1.25M to run.
Government will give you 0.5M to run it for them.
I know Government could save 0.25M by running it themselves but that is against our principles.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,468
- Reaction score
- 541
- Country
The corona virus is exposing bad policies each and everyday.
Sponsored Links
I was being general not specific areas. It's a fact that taxation income is a factor favouring them. I posted a link to an official report on that recently. If it's not achieving that it's no better than nationalised utilities. There are other factors as well. Starting with zero debt - water companies are one that has been mentioned and other countries are wondering about the same thing. Also competition when in real terms there isn't any. Efficiency improvements - dubious. Prices only ever increase.
Corbyn couldn't answer one question - would he shed people if circumstances meant that he should. He should also have been asked about price increases as needed. That is the tricky area for anything that is state run. Frankly I think they have grown up in this area as Blair did pole axe a number of people from one state department. That is a real saving in gov expenditure. Privatisation isn't so straight forwards. It's effectively cooking the books as can result in income. Who pays the tax, the interest on debt and also dividends from shares - the people who use the utilities. A view now is that all that was wrong with nationalised utilities was use for political purposes and nothing to make them work efficiently. Efficiency in real terms is tricky even on privatised ones. Bit like shopping in supermarkets - for the lowest prices take the loss leaders from several. They keep a close eye on what prices others are charging for everything and adjust up and down to suite. Take out car insurance with a new company - you might get 25% discount because they know you will probably renew next year. Competition is some ways is a joke.
Are you assuming that they pay tax?
https://www.cps.org.uk/research/the...ivatisation-and-its-effect-on-the-exchequer/#
If they are not still doing that there is even less reason for having them.
Then if they are using tax havens and various other things that avoid paying tax ?????
Another edit - in real terms another way of collecting tax off us. Also if any need top ups. Not accounting for peoples income.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,730
- Reaction score
- 2,219
- Country
I'm assuming they will go with the an Outsourced Operate model and get them bidding against each other to run a section of the service. Much the same way as all govt outsource contracts.
The P& L will be nationalised.
Running the trains like the gas network with a network operator/grid and franchisee/shipper model doesn't work. You can't have privatisation where there is no competition. They could go with a wholesale/retail model where the rail company bids for how many tickets it can sell and then competes (like open reach/broadband) differentiated by operating costs and upsell/xsell alone.
The P& L will be nationalised.
Running the trains like the gas network with a network operator/grid and franchisee/shipper model doesn't work. You can't have privatisation where there is no competition. They could go with a wholesale/retail model where the rail company bids for how many tickets it can sell and then competes (like open reach/broadband) differentiated by operating costs and upsell/xsell alone.
I don't suppose many will read this and realise why Corbyn wants to do something about it I live in hope as it's an example of counterproductive competition
https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/bt-shares-collapse-amid-huawei-woes-ii510379
It's an interesting area. If I want fibre it has to be with Virgin as they own the local line. Initially installed by B'ham Cable that seemed to be USA based really and then bought out twice. I use ADSL. BT Openreach was going around recently improving the waterproofing on connections. I did use B'ham Cable for a while and then the line had problems - no repair unless I updated my package to something more expensive. Performance was mixed as they didn't update the server farm until they had enough users to pay for it in a reasonable time. I went with Tiscali who did for a little extra cost provide a decent service. Bought out by TalkTalk as soon as it started getting significant business. That's what happens to a company that rocks the boat.
BT in this respect was set up to provide the main highways not really local services so anyone can get involved. Cash from the sale of shares went to the gov. They were desperate for it at the time. North Sea revenue went to the same problem as well. Sale of council houses looks to be broadly similar and called disposal of short term housing stock knowing that there would be a big increase in private landlords. That and other factors keeps house prices up.
Corbyn actually mentioned that he wanted to work along with who ever owns Virgin but his main point was get it done full stop and actually a lot of that is a one off cost. Making it free is a left wing twist. It would be done via taxation but that does level the playing field as far as users are concerned, big business or what ever they are.
Talk about competition between electricity and gas is a big joke. It's also a rag tag mess of several "companies".
I live in hope as it's an example of counterproductive competitionhttps://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/bt-shares-collapse-amid-huawei-woes-ii510379
It's an interesting area. If I want fibre it has to be with Virgin as they own the local line. Initially installed by B'ham Cable that seemed to be USA based really and then bought out twice. I use ADSL. BT Openreach was going around recently improving the waterproofing on connections. I did use B'ham Cable for a while and then the line had problems - no repair unless I updated my package to something more expensive. Performance was mixed as they didn't update the server farm until they had enough users to pay for it in a reasonable time. I went with Tiscali who did for a little extra cost provide a decent service. Bought out by TalkTalk as soon as it started getting significant business. That's what happens to a company that rocks the boat.
BT in this respect was set up to provide the main highways not really local services so anyone can get involved. Cash from the sale of shares went to the gov. They were desperate for it at the time. North Sea revenue went to the same problem as well. Sale of council houses looks to be broadly similar and called disposal of short term housing stock knowing that there would be a big increase in private landlords. That and other factors keeps house prices up.
Corbyn actually mentioned that he wanted to work along with who ever owns Virgin but his main point was get it done full stop and actually a lot of that is a one off cost. Making it free is a left wing twist. It would be done via taxation but that does level the playing field as far as users are concerned, big business or what ever they are.
Talk about competition between electricity and gas is a big joke. It's also a rag tag mess of several "companies".
Sponsored Links
