Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:29 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Thank you for throwing in something utterly unrelated to the topic under discussion.

I haven't even remotely suggested that the private sector is not where money is generated. Although if one looks beyond your myopic (note spelling) view, one could understand that it wouldn't make as much money without education and health care and transport infrastructure and refuse collection – etc etc etc.

However, as I said, I hadn't mentioned that.

I haven't mentioned tax.

So try to read what has actually been posted and not what you want or expect it to read.

You gave examples of where the private sector had performed poorly through the desire to cut corners, yet excluded examples within the public sector - suggesting abuse only happens where making money is the key driver?

It could be argued without the funds generated by the private sector you would not have had all those things you mentioned? chicken and egg?

We started off with democracy - which you neatly sidestepped - as you did the cosy relationship between the unions and previous regimes!! You brought up big business - did you not expect that to be challenged?

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:50 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

You gave examples of where the private sector had performed poorly through the desire to cut corners, yet excluded examples within the public sector - suggesting abuse only happens where making money is the key driver?

Context. We were discussing the idea of government running the country for the benefit of big business. You asked if big business should be ignored. I said that the country should not be run for it. I then gave examples of the behaviour of big business that require the state to regulate properly, if it acting in the interests of the majority.

Since I wasn't positing the idea that the country should 'be run for the benefit of public services' or suggesting that the public sector is perfect, your introduction of the public sector into the discussion is irrelevant.

Sal Paradise wrote:

It could be argued without the funds generated by the private sector you would not have had all those things you mentioned? chicken and egg?

In which case, you've just rather damned your original point.

Sal Paradise wrote:

We started off with democracy - which you neatly sidestepped - as you did the cosy relationship between the unions and previous regimes!! You brought up big business - did you not expect that to be challenged?

No. I didn't side-step it: it was a question that was answered perfectly well by another poster who did so in direct response to your post. I don't feel the need to replicate what someone says in such a situation.

And you didn't 'challenge' it. You didn't make a comment that was remotely pertinent to the point.

Your comment about unions and "previous regimes" was crass. You seem to fall into a trap of viewing everything in strictly black and white terms. So, as here, if someone objects to government being too cosy with big business, you immediately assume that the only possible alternative to that is beer and sandwiches at No10. It's not. Like pretty much everything else in life, there are a few shades of grey between black and white.

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:00 pm  

Tfl make healthy profit on the buses but lose heavily on the Underground.
They have/are building and investing in the Overground trains, increasing frequency, rolling stock, even building tracks and stations vastly improving the network especially for those south of the river.

The bendy bus is a nuisance (i'm an ex london bus driver), it's expensive and in the tight congested roads of london wasn't fit for purpose and i can say and see that first hand.

The boris bus (for all you people concerned with job creation) is a crew bus between peak times, so every bus as an extra person with a job on board.

Cycle lane investment, and future further improvements, the (completely voluntary) boris bike scheme is a slow burning money maker.

When Ken was in charge he had a rule of if a bus company won a new tendered route that they had to put brand new buses as part of the contract also bus companies couldn't have a bus beyond 10years old on the road in London, looks great for the public but costly. Boris scrapped that saving money and unnecessary wastage.

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:28 pm  

Horatio Yed wrote:

... The bendy bus is a nuisance (i'm an ex london bus driver), it's expensive and in the tight congested roads of london wasn't fit for purpose and i can say and see that first hand...

It's gtreat for, say Park and ride in York, straight in, straight out.
But you're right, I've seen loads of snarl-ups where the bendybus has got part way round a congested crossroads and holds up the traffic on all four exits.
It also takes up lots more road space than a double decker ... and is, by definition, a congestion-increaser.

Horatio Yed wrote:

... The boris bus (for all you people concerned with job creation) is a crew bus between peak times, so every bus as an extra person with a job on board...

Or, inefficient.

Horatio Yed wrote:

... Cycle lane investment, and future further improvements, the (completely voluntary) boris bike scheme is a slow burning money maker...

Really?
How slow burning can you get, he's just had to double the rental cost.

Horatio Yed wrote:

... When Ken was in charge he had a rule of if a bus company won a new tendered route that they had to put brand new buses as part of the contract also bus companies couldn't have a bus beyond 10years old on the road in London, looks great for the public but costly. Boris scrapped that saving money and unnecessary wastage.

... and spent hundreds of millions on a bus that was supposed to be for 87 passengers but only carries 78, that weighs a ton more than it was meant to and that the operators didn't want and wouldn't buy, so TfL will have to pay for them.
Just so that Boris could have an open step at the back, off-the-shelf buses were ignored.

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:30 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Do you pay council tax in London? No so you are not a resident simple.

I was resident Monday to Friday and contributing to the local economy both in working there and spendng money there.

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:33 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

You haven't answered the question - if costs rise - salaries are rising by 3.8% starting in April 2013 how is that paid for if you do not increase fares?

Save money by not spending it on stuff that people don't want.

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:37 pm  

Horatio Yed wrote:

Tfl make healthy profit on the buses but lose heavily on the Underground.
They have/are building and investing in the Overground trains, increasing frequency, rolling stock, even building tracks and stations vastly improving the network especially for those south of the river.

The bendy bus is a nuisance (i'm an ex london bus driver), it's expensive and in the tight congested roads of london wasn't fit for purpose and i can say and see that first hand.

The boris bus (for all you people concerned with job creation) is a crew bus between peak times, so every bus as an extra person with a job on board.

Cycle lane investment, and future further improvements, the (completely voluntary) boris bike scheme is a slow burning money maker.

When Ken was in charge he had a rule of if a bus company won a new tendered route that they had to put brand new buses as part of the contract also bus companies couldn't have a bus beyond 10years old on the road in London, looks great for the public but costly. Boris scrapped that saving money and unnecessary wastage.

What?

Did you read this on the previous page?

El Barbudo wrote:

Ken wouldn't have introduced a new Routemaster (that actually isn't a Routemaster at all), he liked the bendybuses that Boris is scrapping rather than allowing to see out their service before replacement.
This is the Routemaster superbus that was supposed to be private funded but ended up being paid for by the TfL traveller, estimated at £180m by the time they're all in service, but don't hold your breath as the costs are going up and very few buses appearing.
TfL is having to pay for and own the buses because the operators don't actually want them and will henceforth charge for just operating them ... oh and TfL will pay the extra for conductors required.

Then there's the £15m that TfL paid out for the dead-duck cable car across the Thames (for which TfL refuse to publish the fares they take, but it can't be much, it's only attracting 300 passengers a day).
Again, this was meant to be privately financed but the £15m was paid by TfL travellers in addition to the £6m pa in operating costs ... only the profits are private.

Boris has also doubled (yes, doubled, in one price hike) the cost of renting a Boris Bike ... as I recall the doubling was about inflation x 30.
The scheme is going to be rolled out to Western suburbs but Fulham and Hammersmith and others are going to have to fork out £2m apiece (because Barclays can't afford the £50m they said they'd put in for sponsorship and have only stumped-up £13m).

So, apart from just splashing the cash in a profligate manner, Boris also has to toe the Coailition line and reduce costs hugely ... hence price rises.

As I recall, when Ken refused to increase fares, Maggie abolished his council.
So, all in all, I think that transport was top of Ken's list for keeping.

TfL have never worked at a profit, whether over or underground, the massive subsidies they have always received saw to that. TfL are not there to make a profit, they exist to regulate and fund the PRIVATE operators of the bus fleet and ensure the rail fleet operates at something like efficiency

Between 1997 and 2004 I worked closely with TfL and all the LtB operators on the drive to clean up exhaust emissions of their fleets in the capital. This included the design of particulate traps and catalysts for new buses and also a massive retrofit programme for the existing fleet. The retrofit programme included re-powering to more modern diesel units, even on Routemasters. That programme was fully-funded by TfL.

When a new bus was specified on a particular route, the existing fleet wasn't scrapped. The operators were all national companies. All that happened is the older buses were shipped out to the provinces where air quality wasn't such a problem.

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:27 pm  

If tfl scrapped the trains, they would run on very healthy profits on the buses alone, i was told this personally at their head office in Victoria St.
I agree on the Boris bus, i was being a little playful about the job creation. It's a vanity project, people say boris bikes were also a vanity project but i personally think it's a good think for the city log term, long overdue too.

Seeing as you worked on that project as you said you may be in a position to help answer a question.
To keep the emissions down they use adblue but also even though the emissions are down is it right that by doing this you decrease the full efficiency of the bus?

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:52 pm  

Horatio Yed wrote:

If tfl scrapped the trains, they would run on very healthy profits on the buses alone, i was told this personally at their head office in Victoria St.
I agree on the Boris bus, i was being a little playful about the job creation. It's a vanity project, people say boris bikes were also a vanity project but i personally think it's a good think for the city log term, long overdue too.

Seeing as you worked on that project as you said you may be in a position to help answer a question.
To keep the emissions down they use adblue but also even though the emissions are down is it right that by doing this you decrease the full efficiency of the bus?

Adblu, in conjunction with a particulate trap was only introduced relatively recently in order to reduce NOx (oxides of nitrogen), I was primarily involved in reducing PM (particulate matter) and HC (hydrocarbons). From my experience of particulate traps, the effect of fuel consumption was negligible. There was a far greater variable ina driver's right boot than could ever be evidenced from a trap. The only time a trap would cause a problem with fuel economy is if the the duty cycle (or stupid maintenance*) caused the trap to clog up and increase exhaust back-pressure. We had very few examples of this simply because we used to coduct extensive datalogging of the duty cycles on each route and model of bus operating on that route. If we presented a case to TfL that the route was not suitable for particulate traps, then they would allow the bus to operate on catalyst only.

* one example of poor maintenance that I encountered was an excessive rate of sooting up on buses in one particular garage, after a trap post-mortem, we also found high levels of mineral oil in the soot. The most obvious cause of excess sooting and oil contamination would be worn rings or valve guides but there was no evidence of blue smole from the bus exhausts. I was waiting at the garage one evening to commence fitting more logging equipment and was parked opposite the fuelling island. The yard monkey drove the bus to the island and as the tank was filling he also put a litre of oil in the engine. He never bothered dipping the sump, just put the oil in regardless. I wandered over to him and asked if it was normal practice and he confirmed that it was HIS normal practice. Once he drove the bus into the garage so I could fit the logger, I took the opportunity to check the dipstick. The oil was about 4" above the FULL level. Result was: I had a word with the fleet engineer, he bollocked the fuel island chimp, they changed the practice, the sooting problem disappeared and they saved £1000s in lubricating oil

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:20 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Context. We were discussing the idea of government running the country for the benefit of big business. You asked if big business should be ignored. I said that the country should not be run for it. I then gave examples of the behaviour of big business that require the state to regulate properly, if it acting in the interests of the majority.

Since I wasn't positing the idea that the country should 'be run for the benefit of public services' or suggesting that the public sector is perfect, your introduction of the public sector into the discussion is irrelevant.

In which case, you've just rather damned your original point.

No. I didn't side-step it: it was a question that was answered perfectly well by another poster who did so in direct response to your post. I don't feel the need to replicate what someone says in such a situation.

And you didn't 'challenge' it. You didn't make a comment that was remotely pertinent to the point.

Your comment about unions and "previous regimes" was crass. You seem to fall into a trap of viewing everything in strictly black and white terms. So, as here, if someone objects to government being too cosy with big business, you immediately assume that the only possible alternative to that is beer and sandwiches at No10. It's not. Like pretty much everything else in life, there are a few shades of grey between black and white.

You criticised big business as you do all the time - how your suggest there are shades of grey - defies belief when you read your stuff. My point about the unions was simply to suggesting another interest group that has influence - a group that you deem beyond criticism. This was obviously lost on you.

The point about regulation was also lost on you - the health service should be pretty stringently regulated, the fact they have paid out million in compromise agreements to cover up their short comings was again an illustration of a similar but different situation involving another of your sacred cows - again woos.

If you want to create growth through employment I would suggest it could be a good idea to get large business on side and consult with them - let's face it they do know a thing or two about wealth and job creation - Morrisons employs 160k staff and turns over 18bn and made of profit of 850m - to run a business of this size takes quite a lot of skill and know how.

I never damned my original point - your point was big business would not be the same without the public money spent with it - my point was without business you might not have public services. Take Salts Mill - without the mill and the profits it generated there would have been no village, hospital, school etc.