If someone else posted something like that you would slaughter them Matthew

True and I did t explain what I meant properly. The total liabilities the tax payer would have on their books from a fully privatised rail network would include the Network Rail liabilities.

However, it looks like Network Rail could be privatised before the next election.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

If someone else posted something like that you would slaughter them Matthew

When talking to those who are not in touch with reality you do, unfortunately, have to speak their language. However dirty that may make you feel.

--------------------------------------------------

I don't get your logic. Why would renationalising cost the £34bn that is already a debt? Would it somehow crystalise the debt?

Also, when talking about the cost of renationalising in 2004, I believe the Chancellor may have been including the cost of buying out existing franchises which is not the proposal here.

Not saying I think it's either a good or a bad idea but let's at least be objective about the costs.

Edited by Mapletree (22 Sep 2015 6.42pm)

yes you would have to service the ongoing debt bit that is not the came as saying it would cost that amount. That would come out of income

--------------------------------------------------

I don't get your logic. Why would renationalising cost the £34bn that is already a debt? Would it somehow crystalise the debt?

Also, when talking about the cost of renationalising in 2004, I believe the Chancellor may have been including the cost of buying out existing franchises which is not the proposal here.

Not saying I think it's either a good or a bad idea but let's at least be objective about the costs.

Edited by Mapletree (22 Sep 2015 6.42pm)

I have explained it. I can only think you want a fight.

Taking into account the Network Rail liabilities, the cost of purchase and legal costs, conservatively the liabilities to the taxpayer would be 70 billion.

The fact is that due to EU law, you cannot simply 'run down' the franchises and not re-tender. Read the article I posted in response to Sedlescombe.

This is being objective. You may not like it but renationalising the railways is nigh on impossible from a legal and cost perspective unless someone can offer a costed view to the contrary rather than emotive posts about subsidies and train companies charging huge ticket costs as somehow a reason for renationalisation.

Edited by matt_himself (22 Sep 2015 7.01pm)

Ah, I missed that post. So in fact renationalising wouldn't cost £70bn. However, if renationalisation happened the total debt to the taxpayer would effectively double. Now why didn't you say that in the first place!

Wouldn't have to pay shareholder dividends or fat cat bonuses for failure either.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

I think it this case it would be Fat Controller bonuses.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Could you provide some evidence of these fat cat bonuses you speak of? And explain how they are above the industry norm and delivering punitive service for rail users?

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

But arguably considerably less. High ranking civil servants tend to be a lot lower on the pay scale than CEOs - and of course are much more accountable via the Minister for Transport.

Although in my experience, a privitised service tends to be cheaper to run but less efficient, harder to control by the state and somewhat less accountable and reliable; a nationalized service tends to cost the state more, but tends to be more efficient to end users, easily controlled by state, accountable and more consistent.

I'd generally say that if you want cheap, but minimal services, private sector is the way forwards. However if you want good services, and don't mind paying the extra taxation, then the state generally does it better.

The problem with the later of course is that not everyone will get to see the 'better service', as private companies tend to do the core and front facing services really well, but then save on the fringe and less common services.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Fat Cat as a term would suggest that payments made are above the norm. They imply that that recipient is receiving money for doing nothing or is receiving excessively more money than they are due.

Looking at the figures in your two year old report, most of the figures presented (GBP 100,000 to GBP 200,000) seem within the norm for directors and executives.

The bigger figures of the CEO's of companies have their salaries approved by shareholders.

Nice attempt to swerve and introduce yet more emotion over substance with the satisfaction issue. 25% dissatisfaction doesn't appear that bad at face value. Your last part is emotive guff.

In response to Jamies point about civil servants, firstly there are many civil servants earning the same band of GBP 100,000 to GBP 200,000. And, again, where does Jamie think all the rail/transport savvy civil servants who could run a nationalised rail network are now? They are working for the rail companies and they will earn the same regardless of whether they work for the private or public sector.

Face it, you are ideologically wedded to the concept of a nationalised rail network without being prepared to face the reality that renationalisation is illegal under your precious EU law, the cost is prohibitive and it is hard to see how, given that the budget for investment would be roughly the same as present, how services could be much improved. No one has provided a convincing argyment for this, just emotive blackmail and ideological nonsense.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02