|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Dec 22, 2022 16:31:35 GMT
Why would I read that? It has no bearing on the argument.
Perhaps you can explain exactly whixh elements would be objectionable to UK trades unions?
|
|
ootlg
New Member
Posts: 10,381
|
Post by ootlg on Dec 22, 2022 16:34:54 GMT
Wilful ignorance. Shame on you.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Dec 22, 2022 16:36:03 GMT
Wilful ignorance. Shame on you. Perhaps you can explain exactly which elements would be objectionable to UK trades unions? |
|
moggyonspeed
New Member
"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat."
Posts: 7,674
|
Post by moggyonspeed on Dec 23, 2022 9:48:55 GMT
What andy and baloo said yesterday about ticket pricing is true.
The Victorians, who built the majority of our current UK rail infrastructure, enacted two Laws which we would do well to consider in these modern times: -
- The Railway Regulation Act 1844, which mandated that Third Class fares be capped at 1d. per mile (this was an even more stringent rule than the "tickets should affordable" notion required before a licence were granted).
- The Cheap Trains Act 1883, which required train operators to roster even more Third Class trains and to essentially scrap passenger duty, which led quite quickly to a vastly increased level of social mobility.
Yes - perhaps we should consider a modern-day equivalent.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Dec 23, 2022 10:48:48 GMT
There's an argument to reintroduce a lot of common good subsidies. We are in a very challenging - almost wartime - economic and social environment at the moment. I think we're kidding ourselves that Covid hasn't been very expensive but, by the same token, I think it's been the catalyst for a lot of good and potential good change.
|
|
ootlg
New Member
Posts: 10,381
|
Post by ootlg on Dec 23, 2022 11:04:23 GMT
Wilful ignorance. Shame on you. Perhaps you can explain exactly which elements would be objectionable to UK trades unions? Dec 22, 2022 14:30:07 GMT 1 ootlg said: Interestingly, the rail unions are anti-EU, pro-Brexit. Your buddies. They wanted out of the EU to be able to do exactly that - renationalise (which goes against EU directives designed to encourage competition and <cough> improved services).
It's the EU 4th Railway Package they're talking about. 2016. |
|
ootlg
New Member
Posts: 10,381
|
Post by ootlg on Dec 23, 2022 11:08:33 GMT
There's an argument to reintroduce a lot of common good subsidies. We are in a very challenging - almost wartime - economic and social environment at the moment. I think we're kidding ourselves that Covid hasn't been very expensive but, by the same token, I think it's been the catalyst for a lot of good and potential good change. Ah, the old Covid excuse. The rest of the world seems to have managed. Try Brexit. Or even a combination of Brexit and Covid. Or even a combination of Brexit, Covid, and Tory mismanagement. Then you might understand why the UK is in a very challenging - almost wartime - economic and social environment at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Dec 23, 2022 11:10:57 GMT
Perhaps you can explain exactly which elements would be objectionable to UK trades unions? Dec 22, 2022 14:30:07 GMT 1 ootlg said: Interestingly, the rail unions are anti-EU, pro-Brexit. Your buddies. They wanted out of the EU to be able to do exactly that - renationalise (which goes against EU directives designed to encourage competition and <cough> improved services).
It's the EU 4th Railway Package they're talking about. 2016. But many EU railways are nationalised and have become so during those nations' membership of the EU. This really isn't working for you. Your bluff has been called. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Dec 23, 2022 11:11:36 GMT
There's an argument to reintroduce a lot of common good subsidies. We are in a very challenging - almost wartime - economic and social environment at the moment. I think we're kidding ourselves that Covid hasn't been very expensive but, by the same token, I think it's been the catalyst for a lot of good and potential good change. Ah, the old Covid excuse. The rest of the world seems to have managed. Try Brexit. Or even a combination of Brexit and Covid. Or even a combination of Brexit, Covid, and Tory mismanagement. Then you might understand why the UK is in a very challenging - almost wartime - economic and social environment at the moment. Has the rest of the World emerged? I don't think so. |
|
ootlg
New Member
Posts: 10,381
|
Post by ootlg on Dec 23, 2022 11:20:38 GMT
Dec 22, 2022 14:30:07 GMT 1 ootlg said: Interestingly, the rail unions are anti-EU, pro-Brexit. Your buddies. They wanted out of the EU to be able to do exactly that - renationalise (which goes against EU directives designed to encourage competition and <cough> improved services).
It's the EU 4th Railway Package they're talking about. 2016. But many EU railways are nationalised and have become so during those nations' membership of the EU. This really isn't working for you. Your bluff has been called. Not my bluff. I merely pointed out what the rail union leader said (I personally don't give a monkey's). And if you take time to read what the above mentioned EU directive is about you'll probably understand. Probably. |
|
ootlg
New Member
Posts: 10,381
|
Post by ootlg on Dec 23, 2022 11:29:08 GMT
Ah, the old Covid excuse. The rest of the world seems to have managed. Try Brexit. Or even a combination of Brexit and Covid. Or even a combination of Brexit, Covid, and Tory mismanagement. Then you might understand why the UK is in a very challenging - almost wartime - economic and social environment at the moment. Has the rest of the World emerged? I don't think so. Managed was the word I used. Not emerged.
In the Eurozone, GDP growth was 0.3%. Growth was also 0.2% in France, while Germany saw growth of 0.4% and in the US it was 0.7%. Compared to the pre-pandemic level, UK GDP in Q3 2022 was 0.8% lower. This compares with Eurozone GDP being 2.2% higher than its pre-pandemic level, while US GDP was 4.3% higher.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Dec 23, 2022 11:40:05 GMT
But many EU railways are nationalised and have become so during those nations' membership of the EU. This really isn't working for you. Your bluff has been called. Not my bluff. I merely pointed out what the rail union leader said (I personally don't give a monkey's). And if you take time to read what the above mentioned EU directive is about you'll probably understand. Probably. Haha. Epic fail. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Dec 23, 2022 11:40:49 GMT
Has the rest of the World emerged? I don't think so. Managed was the word I used. Not emerged.
In the Eurozone, GDP growth was 0.3%. Growth was also 0.2% in France, while Germany saw growth of 0.4% and in the US it was 0.7%. Compared to the pre-pandemic level, UK GDP in Q3 2022 was 0.8% lower. This compares with Eurozone GDP being 2.2% higher than its pre-pandemic level, while US GDP was 4.3% higher.
Oh, we'll manage. |
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,236
|
Post by voice on Dec 23, 2022 12:28:06 GMT
What andy and baloo said yesterday about ticket pricing is true. The Victorians, who built the majority of our current UK rail infrastructure, enacted two Laws which we would do well to consider in these modern times: - - The Railway Regulation Act 1844, which mandated that Third Class fares be capped at 1d. per mile (this was an even more stringent rule than the "tickets should affordable" notion required before a licence were granted). - The Cheap Trains Act 1883, which required train operators to roster even more Third Class trains and to essentially scrap passenger duty, which led quite quickly to a vastly increased level of social mobility. Yes - perhaps we should consider a modern-day equivalent. TBF Victorian Britain was rather well off, so could afford such things, these days, post the Brexit and Truss debacles, Britain is very much in state of penury with little expectation it will recover from these two self inflicted wounds any time soon. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Dec 23, 2022 12:37:01 GMT
That's an interesting thought: was Victorian Britain better off in the way that could support that sort of command economy policy?
I hadn't given it much thought, and I'm not entirely sure how public finances were arranged back then, in a very cash-based economy, before VAT.
Hmmmm .... I suppose that putting in a condition restricting ticket pricing was cost neutral as it was borne by the operator.
|
|
ootlg
New Member
Posts: 10,381
|
Post by ootlg on Dec 23, 2022 14:07:16 GMT
What andy and baloo said yesterday about ticket pricing is true. The Victorians, who built the majority of our current UK rail infrastructure, enacted two Laws which we would do well to consider in these modern times: - - The Railway Regulation Act 1844, which mandated that Third Class fares be capped at 1d. per mile (this was an even more stringent rule than the "tickets should affordable" notion required before a licence were granted). - The Cheap Trains Act 1883, which required train operators to roster even more Third Class trains and to essentially scrap passenger duty, which led quite quickly to a vastly increased level of social mobility. Yes - perhaps we should consider a modern-day equivalent. Couldn't disagree more. In fact I'm astounded you believe it. |
|
flatandy
New Member
Posts: 44,425
Member is Online
|
Post by flatandy on Dec 23, 2022 14:16:15 GMT
There's an argument to reintroduce a lot of common good subsidies. We are in a very challenging - almost wartime - economic and social environment at the moment. I think we're kidding ourselves that Covid hasn't been very expensive but, by the same token, I think it's been the catalyst for a lot of good and potential good change. I'm not sure the railways need to be subsidised. They need to be regulated - and if they fail to be brought under common ownership. We don't need subsidies to drift to shareholders. If the TOCs and so on can't make a profit on what the public considers to be the price that's in the greater public interest, then tough sh*t, shareholder. |
|
ootlg
New Member
Posts: 10,381
|
Post by ootlg on Dec 23, 2022 14:19:56 GMT
We shouldn't be subsidising private industry. Or bailing it out. And when private industries go to the wall they should be audited.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Dec 23, 2022 22:08:39 GMT
We shouldn't be subsidising private industry. Or bailing it out. And when private industries go to the wall they should be audited. The problem with that is who pays? It's a well-trodden path: if an administrator can be tempted to take an interest at all (which they won't if there are genuinely no assets) they'll rip the arse out of what's left and fold it. The devil take the hindmost. |
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,236
|
Post by voice on Dec 28, 2022 0:52:25 GMT
Advice for a certain member
How to claim nurses have lost the support of the nation by ignoring the millions who support them – a NewsThump guide
Are you desperate to portray NHS nurses as selfish money-hungry layabouts? Is a nation of people who love the NHS and its workers making that difficult? Let this NewsThump guide help you.
The urge to demonise nurses is very strong amongst frothing right-wing mouth breathers, and it can be hard to show you are right about nurses losing the support of the nation when at every turn you are confronted with evidence to the contrary.
Follow these steps to ensure victory in any online engagement.
1. Simply deny reality. The observable universe is quite likely to be nothing more than a simulation anyway, so it’s actually pretty easy to dismiss the evident opinions of millions of people who support nurses just because you don’t agree with those opinions. It’s probably just ones and zeros on a computer somewhere, anyway.
2. Ignore the millions of people who stood on the doorstep and clapped for them during the pandemic. Their opinion can not be trusted as they are clearly biased against your mission to demonise nurses. If you happen to be one of those people who did clap, and even said things like “they are angels” at the time, you can dismiss it as a momentary lapse in judgement, and that now you “see the truth”.
3. Lie about them. When you know your position is the right one, it is morally acceptable to tell lies to support your case. That’s because if you tell the truth, then the other side might win the argument, and that’s way worse than a little white lie.
4. Pretend nurses earn loads already. You can do this by comparing them to people doing jobs earning even less, or to jobs you did when you were younger and Freddos were 10p. This race-to-the-bottom style of argument is particularly effective on simpletons. Whatever you do, do NOT – under any circumstances – mention that thousands of nurses claim Universal Credit, because to do so would be cast iron evidence that by the government’s OWN standards, these nurses do not earn enough to live on.
5. Tell everyone you speak for the silent majority. The silent majority are your secret weapon. They are huge, invisible, and ready to be called into action at a moment’s notice. Are your positions being repeatedly taken apart by thousands of people online? Don’t debate the points, simply insist you speak for the silent majority and claim victory.
Good luck!
Though really its a bit redundant, we see this already...
|
|
