sphericalfox Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 i did miss off the next paragraphs because i thought they were just his opinions as to why the rail network now cost so much whereas the report in the opening part was stated as the results of a proper review . in truth , actually i stopped reading it after the first paragraph I would be interested what Richard's background is, you know who actually help him form his opinions. Oh here, we go! Enjoy! http://conservativeh...chard-wellings/ Thorough objectivity in the guise of an PhD I suppose.
Zingari Posted 5 March 2012 Author Posted 5 March 2012 I would be interested what Richard's background is, you know who actually help him form his opinions. Oh here, we go! Enjoy! http://conservativeh...chard-wellings/ hmmm That indeed does give it a bit of a tendentious feel to it . well spotted
Webbo Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 hmmm That indeed does give it a bit of a tendentious feel to it . well spotted Fancy spreading Tory propaganda. I always thought you were evil deep down.
sphericalfox Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 hmmm That indeed does give it a bit of a tendentious feel to it . well spotted As he is the Deputy Editor, I would imagine this 'think-tank' publication 'leans' a particular way, with no agenda at all.
Saxondale Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 But how can it be cheaper, without laying off staff and replacing them with cheaper and less qualified staff? Because it's fixed cost. Private Company X bid for the contract at a fixed price, which will be less than the current cost to carry out the functions. Private Company X is able to deliver the same services for less money and still make a profit for itself because, not only is it paying it's people much less than the Constabulary (not to mention gargantuan pension contributions) but it can more effectively manage and streamline processes. If Private Company X's costs spiral, that's their own problem as they've already agreed the price of the contract and there is no risk to the customer (the constabulary).
davieG Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 Because it's fixed cost. Private Company X bid for the contract at a fixed price, which will be less than the current cost to carry out the functions. Private Company X is able to deliver the same services for less money and still make a profit for itself because, not only is it paying it's people much less than the Constabulary (not to mention gargantuan pension contributions) but it can more effectively manage and streamline processes. If Private Company X's costs spiral, that's their own problem as they've already agreed the price of the contract and there is no risk to the customer (the constabulary). Except that it wont be allowed to go tits up because that would affect the running of the other police services so there's a high chance it would be bailed out.
Zingari Posted 5 March 2012 Author Posted 5 March 2012 i've just been trying to find out how much the taxpayer subsidises the railways and i've just read this little piece from this site http://www.iea.org.u...icient-railways Last week’s McNulty Review estimated that costs are about 40% higher on Britain’s railways than comparable European networks. Taxpayer subsidies, adjusted for inflation, have probably more than tripled since the British Rail era – reaching around £7 billion per annum. As McNulty explained, higher costs are to a large extent the result of the fragmentation of the industry. A vertically integrated industry was split up, with different firms managing the infrastructure, running the trains and leasing the rolling stock. As a result, transaction costs mushroomed. i'm quoting my own post because it says that the McNulty review estimated that, quote "Taxpayer subsidies, adjusted for inflation, have probably more than tripled since the British Rail era – reaching around £7 billion per annum This article then goes on to give a biased assessment of why this is not the case and other various excuses. Well all i'm really asking is , can anyone find an easy to read synopsis of this McNulty report without any tendentious opinions attached to it ? i have looked , but i can't find anything that is not a whole raft of long winded stuff that i can't understand. edit; basically what i am asking is " has taxpayer's subsidies ( adjusted for inflation) really tripled or not ?
Trav Le Bleu Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 Can someone summarise this thread please? So far it seems to be thus, please correct me if I get it wrong... left wing - right wing - left wing - right wing - left wing - right wing - voice of moderation (Bellend (AGAIN!(Yes - I KNOW! ))) - left wing - right wing - gay marriage - Kevin Russell - something, something daaaaaaaarsiiiiiiiiiideeeeeee!
Captain... Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 Because it's fixed cost. Private Company X bid for the contract at a fixed price, which will be less than the current cost to carry out the functions. Private Company X is able to deliver the same services for less money and still make a profit for itself because, not only is it paying it's people much less than the Constabulary (not to mention gargantuan pension contributions) but it can more effectively manage and streamline processes. If Private Company X's costs spiral, that's their own problem as they've already agreed the price of the contract and there is no risk to the customer (the constabulary). But the money to pay Comapny X needs to come from somewhere, and they are not planning to increase the police budget, so cuts will still be made somewhere to have the money to pay Company X, which can only really come from sacking people who currently do this job, the amount we pay company X will then need to be significantly less than what we are saving by sacking people otherwise what is the point of all this. Company X will then need to take their cut for all the administration fees and company costs and the profit, then they will need to scrape the money together to pay a pittance to the people who will be looking after extremely sensitive information. How can you expect to sack 5 people, and use the savings made to pay a company, its directors, shareholders, running costs, profit, VAT and wages to do the work of these 5 people, it just doesn't make sense.
FoxyPV Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 Because it's fixed cost. Private Company X bid for the contract at a fixed price, which will be less than the current cost to carry out the functions. Private Company X is able to deliver the same services for less money and still make a profit for itself because, not only is it paying it's people much less than the Constabulary (not to mention gargantuan pension contributions) but it can more effectively manage and streamline processes. If Private Company X's costs spiral, that's their own problem as they've already agreed the price of the contract and there is no risk to the customer (the constabulary). The essence of naivety. Contractors who work for public bodies (in my experience) always manage to cost far more than originally promised.
Captain... Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 Just digging around on this subject and found this article, from the mail, but exposing what is a common criticism of public funded companies that they just don't run efficiently and get bogged down in bureacracy. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269792/Farce-police-paperwork-exposed-officers-spend-80-minutes-filling-holiday-request-forms.html But the solution to this is not outsource services but to get contractors in to sort out such inefficiencies and install electronic processes to inmprove efficiency and save time and therefore money that way, but that requires spending money to save money which this government doesn't like doing.
Saxondale Posted 6 March 2012 Posted 6 March 2012 This reminds me of my favourite ever Daily Mash article - about outsourcing. I promise this is the last Mash article I will post this week Council To Outsource Lazy, Belligerent Arseholes SUFFOLK Council is to put 9,000 of its malingering, overpaid functions out to private tender. The local authority hopes to save millions by having its phones not answered in a Bangalore call centre alongside an automated system of callous indifference. Council leader Martin Bishop said: "We are challenging the old-fashioned view that working for the council is a job sat on your arse eating biscuits, listening to Radio 2 while filing grievance claims for life. "By working closely with the private sector we can insure our council tax payers continue to be treated like rusty buckets of steaming monkey diarrhoea without having to faff about with PAYE and employer's national insurance contributions." He added: "Why pay some surly bitch with a sociology degree to write ugly, hate-filled letters when we can use a spreadsheet, a laptop and a thirty quid printer to pump out 10,000 sheets a day that just say '**** you' in large, capital letters?" Nikki Hollis, a Suffolk council Unison shop steward, said: "It is obviously a disgraceful, ideologically driven decision and we'll be consulting with our members as soon they are back from long-term sick leave." Meanwhile US firm Omnislouch is bidding to take over the council's social services department, claiming child safety will be increased by 28% via the occasional phone call from their Milwaukee headquarters to some of Ipswich's most dangerously thumb-challenged parents. A spokesman said: "Our telephone-based social services product also offers short term, high interest loans and can recommend personal injury lawyers to people who think they may have slipped on something."
Daggers Posted 6 March 2012 Posted 6 March 2012 Can someone summarise this thread please? So far it seems to be thus, please correct me if I get it wrong... left wing - right wing - left wing - right wing - left wing - right wing - voice of moderation (Bellend (AGAIN!(Yes - I KNOW! ))) - left wing - right wing - gay marriage - Kevin Russell - something, something daaaaaaaarsiiiiiiiiiideeeeeee! Not quite - a bit more like...
davieG Posted 8 March 2012 Posted 8 March 2012 BBC The government is set to outline how it plans to save billions of pounds from spending on the railways. It follows a review by former civil servant Sir Roy McNulty last year which recommended that running costs should be cut by a third to bring them into line with other European networks. Sir Roy criticised the level of rail workers' wages and said some ticket offices may have to be closed. Transport unions have expressed fears that thousands of jobs may be lost. Transport Secretary Justine Greening will later present a paper containing the government's response to Sir Roy's Whitehall-commissioned review. 'Bled dry' The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) fears that as many as 12,000 jobs could be lost. The trade union's general secretary, Bob Crow, said: "If the government want to cut the costs of running Britain's railways, they could do it at a stroke by returning them to public ownership and eliminating the waste of fragmentation and profiteering that has bled the network dry. "Instead they are prescribing more of the same." And the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (TSSA) has launched a campaign to stop the possible axing of hundreds of smaller ticket offices across England and Wales. TSSA leader Manuel Cortes expressed fears that if local booking offices were closed then "the station itself will not be far behind it". "We are in no doubt that the government's plans for rail will be cast in the image of their plans for the NHS - smashing up what's left of a national system and allowing the private train companies to run riot in the name of profit and at the expense of passenger safety," he said. 'Matching demand' In his report, Sir Roy said the ministers should conduct a full review of fares policy and structures "aiming to move towards a system that is seen to be less complex and more equitable". He said this should "aid the management of peak demand and the more efficient matching of demand with capacity". Estimated savings of between £700m and £1bn could be made annually by 2019 if his recommendations were put in place. BBC transport correspondent Richard Westcott said: "Britain's railways are booming - more popular than at any time since the 1920s. But, despite privatisation, the taxpayer still pays around 40% of the costs." Annual rail ticket price rises in January saw the average cost of regulated fares, such as season tickets, increase by 6%. High fares Sir Roy told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that his recommendations would not mean higher fares. He said: "One of the central points of our report is that passengers are already paying fares that are too high. "Our estimate was that passengers in this country are paying about 30% more than their counterparts elsewhere and the cost reduction is essential if that situation is going to be redressed." Transport analyst Christian Wolmar said the problem was that the railway industry was too fragmented. He said: "When it was one industry, British Rail, it was subsidised to the tune of around a billion-and-a-half in today's money and at the moment it's getting four billion pounds of taxpayers' money. "The thing that has changed is that it has been broken up into lots of little bits, lots of different operators, lots of various engineering companies, all sorts of bits are being privatised and broken up, and that's where the cost is."
Daggers Posted 8 March 2012 Posted 8 March 2012 Transport analyst Christian Wolmar said the problem was that the railway industry was too fragmented. He said: "When it was one industry, British Rail, it was subsidised to the tune of around a billion-and-a-half in today's money and at the moment it's getting four billion pounds of taxpayers' money. The thing that has changed is that it has been broken up into lots of little bits, lots of different operators, lots of various engineering companies, all sorts of bits are being privatised and broken up, and that's where the cost is." I bet he was relying on some leftist study carried out twenty years ago on the other side of the world which had been popularised on Twitter and Facebook last week. I know you're meant to stop punching when the opponent is unconscious on the canvas - but thanks for that davieG, it's caused some very loud laughing here!
Webbo Posted 8 March 2012 Posted 8 March 2012 BBC Reading that review it seems to me that the chap in Zingari's link was right. It's not privatisation that's to blame just the way it was privatised.
Zingari Posted 8 March 2012 Author Posted 8 March 2012 Reading that review it seems to me that the chap in Zingari's link was right. It's not privatisation that's to blame just the way it was privatised. The wrong type of snow ! The wrong type of privatisation ! You sound like you work for them
Webbo Posted 8 March 2012 Posted 8 March 2012 The wrong type of snow ! The wrong type of privatisation ! You sound like you work for them You posted the link!
dave the caveman Posted 8 March 2012 Posted 8 March 2012 Transport analyst Christian Wolmar said the problem was that the railway industry was too fragmented. He said: "When it was one industry, British Rail, it was subsidised to the tune of around a billion-and-a-half in today's money and at the moment it's getting four billion pounds of taxpayers' money. The thing that has changed is that it has been broken up into lots of little bits, lots of different operators, lots of various engineering companies, all sorts of bits are being privatised and broken up, and that's where the cost is." I bet he was relying on some leftist study carried out twenty years ago on the other side of the world which had been popularised on Twitter and Facebook last week. I know you're meant to stop punching when the opponent is unconscious on the canvas - but thanks for that davieG, it's caused some very loud laughing here! Exceptional selective quoting by both yourself and the BBC. Christian Wolmar is a well known career-complainer and the trade union... well their opinion is clearly going to be bias and therefore doesn't deserve any consideration in any sensible, reasoned debate. Infact the report in question actually blames trade union action for the astronomical wages and inability of operators to fire unnecessary staff which have led to such high running costs. Trade union action of course being a dirty reminder of the pains of public ownership. A fully privatised network would have so no such issues and would easily be able to streamline services to create huge savings and increases in efficiency. The report does not back public ownership. It backs full privatisation. The report also highlights massive improvements in safety and reliablity since privatisation, but I know you don't do positive news so i expect you'll just ignore that in favour of complaining about something else.
Daggers Posted 8 March 2012 Posted 8 March 2012 Reading that review it seems to me that the chap in Zingari's link was right. It's not privatisation that's to blame just the way it was privatised. Don't tell me the Major got something wrong? *shocked*
Webbo Posted 8 March 2012 Posted 8 March 2012 Don't tell me the Thatcher got something wrong? *shocked* *cough* John Major.
Daggers Posted 8 March 2012 Posted 8 March 2012 *cough* John Major. Pathetic - changing a post to make the person look dim isn't very clever
davieG Posted 12 October 2012 Posted 12 October 2012 How much is your train subsidised? Every time you travelled a mile on a train last year, the government effectively gave the train company an average of 7.5 pence. Or put it another way, assuming you are a taxpayer, you subsidised your own journey by an average of 7.5p per mile. That's on top of buying the ticket of course. In fact, just one train operating company wasn't subsidised overall last year, according to the latest figures from the Department for Transport, and that was First Capital Connect, which runs trains from London, Brighton, Bedford, Peterborough, Cambridge and King's Lynn. At the other end of the scale, Northern Rail got nearly 35p back for every passenger mile travelled on their trains (this figures does not include Scotrail and Arriva Trains Wales that are subsidised separately by the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly). Here's the link if you want to see how your train firm got on. Just like everything else on Britain's railways - ticketing, franchising, finding somewhere to park your bike, these figures are complicated. They include the subsidy paid directly to Network Rail so that they, in turn, can charge the train companies less money to use the track. But what you end up with is straightforward. Every train firm bar one was helped out by the taxpayer. 'Bust' The bigger picture here is this - despite the fact that the railways were privatised nearly two decades ago, the industry is still propped up by bundles of public money. Ministers handed over nearly £4bn last year. Successive governments have been working hard to get that figure down, mainly by charging more for tickets, hence the endless, above-inflation fare increases. But it is still more than 40% of the total cost of running the network. All four rail unions (ASLEF, RMT, TSSA and Unite) together with the TUC are highlighting these figures as part of their ongoing "Action for Rail" campaign. They argue that the figures prove the franchising system is bust, because it just means public money that could be used to improve services, ends up in the pockets of train company shareholders. They've worked out that train firms gave £1.17bn in premiums to the government last year, and got £3.88bn back in subsidies. Expect to see protests at many stations across Britain on Friday. Franchising - giving private companies contracts to run train services - is clearly under a lot of pressure since the government messed up its sums on the West Coast deal. The unions are trying to capitalise on the chaos, to try to get the railways back where they want them, fully in public hands.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.