Commie Corbyn wasting tax payers money again

[Paddy]

Commie Corbyn spending tax payers money like water. After years of throwing money at the lazy railway workers Corbyn is So as spent a further £3.5bn supporting the grossly inefficient state owned railways where is fat-cat union buddies are the bosses.

Lets get rid of Corbyn and privatise the railways, privatisation will bring efficacy, lower prices and profits for the taxpayers.

Rail franchises axed as help for train firms extended - BBC News

[malvolio]

Didn't understand a word of that. but just in case you are hiding a sensible comment in there somewhere, (a) the railways are privatised, it's the rail network that's owned by HMG and run by Railtrack* and (b) what has Corbyn got to do with anything?


* Yes, you could sell off Railtrack but that wouldn't change anything. I worked for them several years ago and they were still working as though the original 1950s model of British Rail was in place. I rather suspect they still are.

[SimonMac]

Commie Corbyn spending tax payers money like water. After years of throwing money at the lazy railway workers Corbyn is So as spent a further £3.5bn supporting the grossly inefficient state owned railways where is fat-cat union buddies are the bosses.

Lets get rid of Corbyn and privatise the railways, privatisation will bring efficacy, lower prices and profits for the taxpayers.

Rail franchises axed as help for train firms extended - BBC News

As a user of Northern, which hands down has to be one of the worse performing franchises some of the problems does lie with the government owned Railtrack as ladymuck mentions. They bid for the franchise based on what the government told them they were going to do to the infrastructure (electrifying the trans pennines route as a key) as that was never done the extra capacity promised by Northern (and budgeted into their plans) never materialised.

That is a very over-simplistic assessment, but not far from the truth as to why Northern struggles

[Paddy]

Didn't understand a word of that. but just in case you are hiding a sensible comment in there somewhere, (a) the railways are privatised, it's the rail network that's owned by HMG and run by Railtrack* and (b) what has Corbyn got to do with anything?


* Yes, you could sell off Railtrack but that wouldn't change anything. I worked for them several years ago and they were still working as though the original 1950s model of British Rail was in place. I rather suspect they still are.

What I am saying is that the Tories are poring tax payers money into a failed privatised railway. However, the same Tories refused to invest in the railways when they were publicly owned. It's tax pays money going to the dividends of shareholders.

[Eirikur]

Nothing wrong with privatization, but it only works if you allow competitors on the same routes, not give monopolies of certain routes to just one supplier.

[Mordac]

Didn't understand a word of that. but just in case you are hiding a sensible comment in there somewhere, (a) the railways are privatised, it's the rail network that's owned by HMG and run by Railtrack* and (b) what has Corbyn got to do with anything?


* Yes, you could sell off Railtrack but that wouldn't change anything. I worked for them several years ago and they were still working as though the original 1950s model of British Rail was in place. I rather suspect they still are.

They did that, in the 90's. I spent some time there around the time they went into administration, and became Network Rail, and they were burning money back then. They had suppliers who were protected by Law, and could charge whatever they liked - whoever was providing their data network charged by the megabyte, so email usage had to be restricted.

[ladymuck]

As a user of Northern, which hands down has to be one of the worse performing franchises some of the problems does lie with the government owned Railtrack as ladymuck mentions. They bid for the franchise based on what the government told them they were going to do to the infrastructure (electrifying the trans pennines route as a key) as that was never done the extra capacity promised by Northern (and budgeted into their plans) never materialised.

That is a very over-simplistic assessment, but not far from the truth as to why Northern struggles

I said no such thing. I can't believe you got me and Mal mixed up

[_V_]

I read that first post several times, totally confused me with the reference to Jeremy Corbyn. As far as I know he had no direct part legislation relating to rail franchising.

It is clear to almost everyone that the current privatisation via franchising model is broken beyond repair*

*Except Boris's merry men

[Paddy]

I read that first post several times, totally confused me with the reference to Jeremy Corbyn. As far as I know he had no direct part legislation relating to rail franchising.

It is clear to almost everyone that the current privatisation via franchising model is broken beyond repair*

*Except Boris's merry men

Just replace "Corbyn" with Tories. The Tories are doing exactly what they accuse what Corbyn may have done had he become PM. I don't like Corbyn and Labour, but nor do I like the Tories; the Liberals are just confusing.

[malvolio]

Just replace "Corbyn" with Tories. The Tories are doing exactly what they accuse what Corbyn may have done had he become PM. I don't like Corbyn and Labour, but nor do I like the Tories; the Liberals are just confusing.

Oops - Yes, I meant Network Rail of course - although they are the same people doing the same job in the same cack-handed way using the same contracts...

Not surprising I didn't understand your point. What Corbyn proposed* (total re-nationalisation at a cost of around £100bn and the ruination of many pension funds and the like) is not what the Tories are doing.



*Although, to be fair, the last Labour manifesto was a collection of slogans and aspirations. Almost none of it was deliverable.