Margaret Thatcher Dies at 87

[Chippiewill]

Just to add up here from my reply down below, i'm all for more railway building provided it's all privately funded - indeed, i'd be for relaxing planning rules by a large degree (which I am for anyway) if private companies were willing to invest.

If it's such a good idea what you're proposing and it [the railway system] has such a bright future, then private companies should be coming forward in droves to invest in and build new railway lines. But the fact is, they aren't.

Oligopoly. Why would the rail companies want to spend money improving the network if they can run a sub-standard service whilst being subsidised by the Government for being so crap and then charge people a ton for it because Planes are so damn inconvenient.

I think you're confusing the argument. I'm not asking your personal preferences or mine, i'm saying look at how people are increasingly choosing to travel and accept it - rather than making the void argument that if only we spent billions and billions on the railways (as we have done) that people would come flocking back. The Spanish regional governments most likely argued the same when they built the pointless and wasteful airports and high speed railway lines when there was no need to - the same for the US Federal Government who thought they would change transport habits by building the famous 'bridges to nowhere'. The state in action; complete failure, as usual.

Look at how people vote with their feet as they say, rather than believing everybody has the same personal preferences as you do.

People prefer trains, when they operate at a reasonable speed. I'm not convinced our rail system has actually been improved since the Victorians built it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oligopoly. Why would the rail companies want to spend money improving the network if they can run a sub-standard service whilst being subsidised by the Government for being so crap and then charge people a ton for it because Planes are so damn inconvenient.

I absolutely agree, thats why i'd remove all the subsidies and force them to stand on their own two feet. Sink or swim, as I said before.

People prefer trains, when they operate at a reasonable speed. I'm not convinced our rail system has actually been improved since the Victorians built it.

As with above, remove the subsidies and get private companies to improve them and we'll see whether they'll be as popular as you claim.

I'm not doubting it either, I think if the railway service was truly privatised it could work pretty well in many areas. My underlying point is, it must be private driven entirely - anything with the state involved in terms of money or direction is like pissing whilst facing the wind.

[Southe,]

Yes you did. You implied very clearly that your support for the continuted existence of your country was based on the premise that a certain political party (the Conservatives) were never returned to power because of the Thatcher legacy. I loathe the Conservative Party as much as the Labour Party, but never would I call into question the existence of my country based on two awful political parties. The country comes above politics, always.

"All i can say is if Scotland doesn't get the Yes vote and we stay united for god sake don't put the Tories in power again."

1. There is no "support for the continued existence" I want independence. I said "if Scotland doesn't get the yes vote"
2. Where in my sentence did i mention "Thatcher legacy" I'm judging the current government and i don't like them, there ideals and there policies.
3. I didn't question the existence of my country based on political parties.
4. Agreed.

Please don't say things that aren't there in future please. I know what i said and implied.

The thought of 50 years of unbroken Labour rule is more preferable to me than the dissolution of my country.

The Union retains majority support in the polling carried out.
We'll see when the actual voting takes place.

...

[-:Undertaker:-]

...

Oh fair enough, you want independence.

I thought you were one of those false Unionists who just wants to stay in the United Kingdom for the handouts.

[Southe,]

And its comments like that, that give me reason to want to get out of the union.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And its comments like that, that give me reason to want to get out of the union.

I don't like some of the comments Scottish nationalists make, it doesn't make me want to dissolve my country. You probably hear comments you don't like in Scotand, it doesn't make you want to dissolve Scotland now does it?

No, it confirms my thought - that you have no feeling or connection towards the concept of Britain as a nation. And that's perfectly fine, i'm not going to argue over it because it's a stupid thing to argue over; I can no more change what nation you feel to be a part of anymore than I can change your view on what the perfect flower looks like, what wooden flooring you prefer and so on. Nationhood is ingrained within you. Clearly when you look at St. Andrews flag, you feel it's your flag - just as I do when I see the Union Flag.

I just take an issue with people who don't actually feel British but who want to stay part of the United Kingdom for purposes of economics/cash handouts. I don't want the Union to break up at all, but if people are purely voting based on how much money they'll get from London - then i'd say let's end it. That's why i'm annoyed that the Unionists aren't fighting the campaign on history and culture, rather they're simply focusing (or scaremongering some would say) over the economic benefits and disadvantages to Scotland.

[AgnesIO]

Don't agree with the inclusion of family on that. I agree though that any expenses system applies to a state event, just as it would with the State Opening of Parliament.



Perhaps, but then again that would also be an argument for cutting everything I stated - and I think that'd be a great shame as those traditions have gone on through war after war, and through bankruptcy. If people are serious about cutting the debt, then the things you have to be looking at are foreign aid, social security, EU payments, the NHS budget, quangos and so on.



I constantly hear praise for the railways on the mainland yet the praise, from what I have also read, is largely overdone. In many cases i've heard people complain that the railways in France for instance are far worse than our railways. It depends who you speak to on them, but as I haven't riden in them I can't comment.

German exchange students whilst I was at school joked about our poor train service - that summed up my opinion. Certainly in my region, the trains are appalling. It doesn't help that my train service has been voted the second worst in the UK - sums it up!

I can say however two points - I don't want to be forced into paying for other peoples railway fares via government subsidies (as we are now) and Spain for example has nice shiny railways - which lead to nowhere and the costs + quality of those railway lines are totally unsuited to the areas the railways cover. The railway fanatics in this country have it stuck in their head that we can roll out bullet trains across the country and somehow this will benefit us - maybe it would have post-war, but instead we spent out loan money on the NHS/new school buildings.

Why can't we roll out bullet trains? All I want is a service that arrives on time, every day (not once a month). I don't care how they do that.

Low cost air travel has largely made the railway even more redundant than it was prior to the 1960s with the mass sale of cars.

Bold.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why can't we roll out bullet trains? All I want is a service that arrives on time, every day (not once a month). I don't care how they do that.

If private companies want to build + operate them (and thus they'll be profitable) then I haven't got a problem with bullet trains.

[AgnesIO]

I hardly think you can compare a railway line in a crowded city of 7m odd (London) is comparable to the concept that we should state fund railways and roll out brand new ones across this country. If the London Underground is state subsidised (I haven't checked) and struggles to be profitable despite the massive usage then I think that goes to prove my point on railways and the future of British transport.

3.66m get the London Underground daily, and it is owned by TfL, of Greater London.

Clearly the LU therefore benefits the economy HUGELY.

Nearly everything increases year on year. That's what happens when you have a monetary system backed by nothing.

Not above inflation they don't.

Then you don't know me, people have thrown the same accusations at me regarding the closing of the mines and industry in this country. My favourite period of Britain, romantic in a way, was when the railways snaked through our industrial towns and cities, when the mills churned out cotton by the load and the sky was dotted with the chimneys producing the smog that made the sunset seem blood red on the horizon. I love seeing the old steam engines in action, I love the grand bridges and tunnels - I feel sad seeing the old carriages sitting abandoned, when tunnels are overgrown with weeds and trees.

But the point is, that it's over. I'm not going to be a Luddite and sit here pretending that I can run a world class (and profitable) railway service from Whitehall and somehow change peoples minds that the hassle of a railway journey is preferable to travelling by car or air.



Get private investors (who have knowledge of business and industry) to stump up cash and build it and your claim will be proved valid.

But this argument really doesn't stand. The railway tracks are not the profitable bit - the trains are. It is like telling Ryanair to build itself an airport, or Ford (+ other car companies) and taxi drivers to build their own roads. It simply wouldn't make sense.

Build the train track, then rent it out - then you don't subsidise it, I promise you it would work - if it was efficient, and therefore low priced.

Commuters don't choose to get the train journey because it is super cheap, they do it because it is SO MUCH less hassle than getting a car everyday - which doesn't help ticket price increases, as the companies know this.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/02/soarin...broad-3567491/

High fares paid by British commuters are subsidising rail travel across Europe – and even China – by millions of pounds.
The profits go to international companies often owned by other governments, which use the money to cut fares on their own networks.
As well as raking in expensive ticket prices, foreign train firms shared in a net subsidy of £2.7billion paid to train companies last year.
Shadow transport minister Maria Eagle said: ‘Many of these private companies are at least in part state-owned, so German, French and Dutch state railways – and a little bit of Hong Kong – are running franchises on our system from which they are making not only dividends and nice big pay packets but also profits.’

So brilliant these private train companies are!

[Chippiewill]

But this argument really doesn't stand. The railway tracks are not the profitable bit - the trains are. It is like telling Ryanair to build itself an airport, or Ford (+ other car companies) and taxi drivers to build their own roads.

I agree with the overall point but many of the airports are privatised too (Thanks to Thatcher no less).