Will just leave this here.
(15 Jan 2018, 4:17 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Will just leave this here.
£2bn worth of contracts awarded, even after it became clear the company was in dire-straits.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/201...-contracts
The irony would be funny if it wasn't so terribly sad... a Government that has plenty of money to offload on to multi-national corporations, which choose looking after their bonus scheme before fulfilling their contractual obligations. Yet not enough money to reverse Government policy, which people are dying as a result of.
(15 Jan 2018, 7:53 pm)Adrian wrote [ -> ]
£2bn worth of contracts awarded, even after it became clear the company was in dire-straits. https://www.theguardian.com/business/201...-contracts
The irony would be funny if it wasn't so terribly sad... a Government that has plenty of money to offload on to multi-national corporations, which choose looking after their bonus scheme before fulfilling their contractual obligations. Yet not enough money to reverse Government policy, which people are dying as a result of.
An absolute shambles.
Some of the quotes from the Government last year are amazing, particularly when you look at todays news.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017...ctors-hs2/
(15 Jan 2018, 4:17 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Will just leave this here.
Aye, cos these private companies are so much more efficient than the public sector.
Husband used to work for Serco. They couldn't find their corporate arse with both hands. They sold off his bit when they realised the had it.
(15 Jan 2018, 11:37 pm)BusLoverMum wrote [ -> ]Aye, cos these private companies are so much more efficient than the public sector.
Husband used to work for Serco. They couldn't find their corporate arse with both hands. They sold off his bit when they realised the had it.
I dont think any organisation is perfect (public or private), but this whole Carillion thing is a huge mess. The implications for thousands of ordinary folk who happen to be employed (even for subcontracting organisations), is the stuff of nightmares.
Heads should roll.
(12 Apr 2018, 9:42 am)idiot wrote [ -> ]Magic money tree again.
At least the sensible discussion is out in force on here again. Try reading the article, rather than swallowing a book of Daily Mail clichés?
To quote the article -
How will they pay for it?
The money will come from Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) - better known as car tax.
From April 2020, VED is due to become a ring-fenced tax to pay for a new roads fund set up by the Tory government.
Labour, however, would widen that ring-fence by putting the money into a "sustainable transport fund" instead.
Labour's fund would be split between both road-building and the bus passes policy.
However, a Labour source insisted no less money would be spent on road building because the extra funds would be provided from capital - long-term, one-off - spending.
Labour has estimated the cost of the policy will be £1.4billion a year.
This is based on bus use statistics from the National Travel Survey and projections on how soon different authorities would be able to implement franchising or municipalisation.
I think it's a silly way of using the money. Maybe using it to subsidize fairs or investments, but cutting money out of the system completely seems... a waste of time and spending. Why not just carry on with their plans to reuse VED and continue to charge people for the service, even if at a subsided rate?? More money to re-invest...
I'm also more concerned about public health and public education and public safety (police & CSOs) than I am about public transport subsiding also, and they definitely should be dead-center of attention for an opposition, it's an open goal. I think it's just politicians trying to appease the common people rather than making a serious pledge, at least I'd hope so in this case.
(12 Apr 2018, 7:17 pm)Jamie M wrote [ -> ]I think it's a silly way of using the money. Maybe using it to subsidize fairs or investments, but cutting money out of the system completely seems... a waste of time and spending. Why not just carry on with their plans to reuse VED and continue to charge people for the service, even if at a subsided rate?? More money to re-invest...
I'm also more concerned about public health and public education and public safety (police & CSOs) than I am about public transport subsiding also, and they definitely should be dead-center of attention for an opposition, it's an open goal. I think it's just politicians trying to appease the common people rather than making a serious pledge, at least I'd hope so in this case.
Do you think the two are mutually exclusive? Every party will come up with a manifesto to pledge to offer different things to different groups of people; that is politics.
Not sure I understand your comment about VED and the link to lower investment. Unless you're dreaming up a forecast for a particular local authority area?
(12 Apr 2018, 7:23 pm)Adrian wrote [ -> ]Do you think the two are mutually exclusive? Every party will come up with a manifesto to pledge to offer different things to different groups of people; that is politics.
Not sure I understand your comment about VED and the link to lower investment. Unless you're dreaming up a forecast for a particular local authority area?
I believe it's nonsense that nobody will even think about if they were ever to get into power in the next election... which is looking more and more unlikely by the day. It's gone from a 2 horse-race to a 0 horse-race. Just stale as far as I can see. I don't believe there is a representative for these issues who will actually progress upon them in any way.
My point with the former wasn't a link to lower investment, rather why stop taking on funding from passengers of that age bracket? Tonnes of them pay for passes and whatnot. Why not use both the VED funding (or it's derivatives) and fares from these passengers to boost funding into public service, instead of replacing it for the 5-25 year old demo?
They can't even fix pot holes from that income never mind this... Oh I would never ever ready the mail.
(12 Apr 2018, 7:17 pm)Jamie M wrote [ -> ]I think it's a silly way of using the money. Maybe using it to subsidize fairs or investments, but cutting money out of the system completely seems... a waste of time and spending. Why not just carry on with their plans to reuse VED and continue to charge people for the service, even if at a subsided rate?? More money to re-invest...
I'm also more concerned about public health and public education and public safety (police & CSOs) than I am about public transport subsiding also, and they definitely should be dead-center of attention for an opposition, it's an open goal. I think it's just politicians trying to appease the common people rather than making a serious pledge, at least I'd hope so in this case.
Whilst the Home Office is ultimately responsible for divesting funds to the police forces around the country, it is up to the local PCC to allocate the funds as they see fit.
This also applies to any precept raised via council tax.
Regardless of how much or how little the Home Office allocates, that PCC will spend accordingly and look after issues they feel important.
Vera Baird has a particular agenda and allocates accordingly. Regardless whether we agree with it or not. This includes victims services, which strangely enough enabled her to award the contract to an organisation she is a director of.
(12 Apr 2018, 7:17 pm)Jamie M wrote [ -> ]I think it's a silly way of using the money. Maybe using it to subsidize fairs or investments, but cutting money out of the system completely seems... a waste of time and spending. Why not just carry on with their plans to reuse VED and continue to charge people for the service, even if at a subsided rate?? More money to re-invest...
I'm also more concerned about public health and public education and public safety (police & CSOs) than I am about public transport subsiding also, and they definitely should be dead-center of attention for an opposition, it's an open goal. I think it's just politicians trying to appease the common people rather than making a serious pledge, at least I'd hope so in this case.
I can't say I've noticed a populist clamour for such a policy?
Young people aren't entitled to things like the full minimum wage so spend proportionately more of their lower income on travel. Plus, if they have free travel then they'll be less inclined to have their own car, thus easing congestion and relieving air quality. Surely that's a good thing?
(13 Apr 2018, 10:19 am)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Whilst the Home Office is ultimately responsible for divesting funds to the police forces around the country, it is up to the local PCC to allocate the funds as they see fit.
This also applies to any precept raised via council tax.
Regardless of how much or how little the Home Office allocates, that PCC will spend accordingly and look after issues they feel important.
Vera Baird has a particular agenda and allocates accordingly. Regardless whether we agree with it or not. This includes victims services, which strangely enough enabled her to award the contract to an organisation she is a director of.
I used to follow this stuff a lot closer, but now I feel most of the time I feel completely disconnected to what's happening and how the country is even being run. Not sure if this is passive or active ignorance.
I would have thought changing passenger fairs and reusing the VED else where or to improve systems, but hard to really say. I still don't think it will come close to actually happening, but that may just be my complete lack of confidence in any government system at present.
(13 Apr 2018, 11:20 am)Chris 1 wrote [ -> ]I can't say I've noticed a populist clamour for such a policy?
Young people aren't entitled to things like the full minimum wage so spend proportionately more of their lower income on travel. Plus, if they have free travel then they'll be less inclined to have their own car, thus easing congestion and relieving air quality. Surely that's a good thing?
My opinions are based on my experiences -- I bought bus passes and drove, so I can't relate to that point.
I don't think it'll deal with congestion either, or not in any noticable way. It'll maybe stop some new drivers starting, but wouldn't convert many to bus imo.
My idea was to subsidise fairs with VED in order to be cutting fairs and having more money free to invest back into the system or elsewhere.
(13 Apr 2018, 11:22 am)Jamie M wrote [ -> ]I used to follow this stuff a lot closer, but now I feel most of the time I feel completely disconnected to what's happening and how the country is even being run. Not sure if this is passive or active ignorance.
I would have thought changing passenger fairs and reusing the VED else where or to improve systems, but hard to really say. I still don't think it will come close to actually happening, but that may just be my complete lack of confidence in any government system at present.
My opinions are based on my experiences -- I bought bus passes and drove, so I can't relate to that point.
I don't think it'll deal with congestion either, or not in any noticable way. It'll maybe stop some new drivers starting, but wouldn't convert many to bus imo.
My idea was to subsidise fairs with VED in order to be cutting fairs and having more money free to invest back into the system or elsewhere.
As Chris said, lowering the price has the potential to reduce car usage and increase patronage.
There are all sorts of studies and theories which back this up. Market equilibrium being one.
However, the only way I can see lower/reduced/free ticketing working effectively, is to re-organise the way the services operate.
To get that younger, minium wage worker on to the bus, that journey time needs to be attractive and probably not involve a change of buses (particularly during off-peak periods, when frequencies are reduced).
Cold, wet, April evening and finishing a shift at 10pm at the Metrocentre, but needing 2/3 buses to complete the trip home? I can't see how that will be attractive to many. Regardless of how reasonable the fares are.
(14 Apr 2018, 9:37 am)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Cold, wet, April evening and finishing a shift at 10pm at the Metrocentre, but needing 2/3 buses to complete the trip home? I can't see how that will be attractive to many. Regardless of how reasonable the fares are.
Agreed, but not even 10pm in a lot of cases. 3 buses required to make the journey from Durham to Washington at only 8pm last night. It is no wonder people tend not to use buses on an evening.
If you haven't already, I urge anyone with an ounce of political interest (regardless of any allegiance or leaning) to read 'Adults in the room - Yanis Varoufakis'.
Had it a few months now, but finally got some time to read and try to digest.
Hard going in places, but worth a read.
I've learned an awful lot and I'm barely a quarter of the way through.
I've had to go back and re-read sections, which partly explains the slow going.
(28 Apr 2018, 10:59 am)Jamie M wrote [ -> ]Neebody to replace them mate!
Not even an opposition..
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
I'd argue that Labour are far more equipped to be running the country than the current Conservatives. Unfortunately the MSM don't actually like to report on the things that the Tories do so horrifically, spending most of their time trying to find fault with Labour.
(28 Apr 2018, 10:59 am)Jamie M wrote [ -> ]Neebody to replace them mate!
Not even an opposition..
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
(28 Apr 2018, 12:35 pm)mb134 wrote [ -> ]I'd argue that Labour are far more equipped to be running the country than the current Conservatives. Unfortunately the MSM don't actually like to report on the things that the Tories do so horrifically, spending most of their time trying to find fault with Labour.
Have to agree re MSM.
I was in the car listening to something with Mrs C this week or last.
Headlines came on and the main story was the anti-Semitism one.
Buried at the very back, after several 'nothing/quiet news day' stories, was the Windrush story.
I'm not saying one is more important than the other, but I thought the editorial decision to order the news in that manner, was clearly a political one.
Obviously that is one that jumps out, but I notice The Times running an anti Russia/Corbyn story today.
Clearly forgetting the links the tories have to Russia, the donations they have recieved etc etc.
For those unaware of those tory links and solely reliant on the MSM ahead of the local elections, you can see how easily influenced and fooled they may be.
Couldn't make it up.
Private company picks up contracts previously held by public sector (supposedly more cost effective).
Private company collapses.
People lose jobs.
Public picks up the tab.
(07 Jun 2018, 8:57 am)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Couldn't make it up.
Private company picks up contracts previously held by public sector (supposedly more cost effective).
Private company collapses.
People lose jobs.
Public picks up the tab.
I think there are times and places for private contracts, but I believe they should be non-essential in a public business, rather than the entire business.
Often than not, the publicly run services are more efficient given they are run with thoughts to purpose and intention of the service, not creaming money. There are certainly cases where private companies do a good job, but it will very rarely compromise profit margins.
I don't think in the UK there's a great need to reform infrastructure (other than rail where it was clearly better under gov control) but just more investment in the services that it currently provides. I also believe if private tenders are raised in value (i.e money paid to contractor), the requirements can also be made tighter in terms of what must be done, and obviously there will be more people willing to take under a more valuable contract, thus provoking more spotlight on providing good quality private contracts.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk