UK government to sell Eurostar stake before general election
Discussion
P-Jay said:
If they sell for £300m (which they wont) we'll kiss goodbye to £7.5m a year of profits it generates........
Eurostar generated £52.3million in profits in 2012 and £54million last year. sourceAs the UK government is a 40% shareholder, then surely we'll be kissing goodbye to a lot more than the £7.5 million that you suggest?
sparkythecat said:
P-Jay said:
If they sell for £300m (which they wont) we'll kiss goodbye to £7.5m a year of profits it generates........
Eurostar generated £52.3million in profits in 2012 and £54million last year. sourceAs the UK government is a 40% shareholder, then surely we'll be kissing goodbye to a lot more than the £7.5 million that you suggest?
P-Jay said:
Some members of public might think - wow, £300m - that'll slash the deficit and they'll be right for almost a whole day when the deficit eats it up, but in a few years time might be wondering when their First International Train to Paris is 4 hours late, crammed to ceiling and costs twice what it did in 2014.
Now you're being silly. It's already a stand-alone company - HMG has no influence in running it and only holds 40% of the shares. There is no incentive to run a bad service otherwise passenger traffic will shift to other routes. This idea that services collapse when there is no more public sector involvement is just daft. Look at BA.The operating profit you quote does not take account of the need to re-invest in rolling stock etc, so I doubt whether all or indeed most of that profit was actually paid out as a dividend. I agree it's not a lot of cash, but it's something and there is really no point in HMG hanging onto this stake - unless you believe that anything that connects with Joe Public should be nationalised, in which case, a quick look at the Soviet Union should provide the necessary antidote.
Cheese Mechanic said:
Wyvern971 said:
Not being funny, but do you think any private company would have even attempted to build the channel tunnel?
As a side note as it's effectively a monopoly due to lack of competition (as are most rail networks) how does privatizing it make sense?
There's no way it'd be allowed to go bust, so guess who pays for a bail out if it gets screwed up by a private company?
The channel tunnel was built by private companies underwritten by Gov't. As for bail outs, the same people would bail out a private funded fAs a side note as it's effectively a monopoly due to lack of competition (as are most rail networks) how does privatizing it make sense?
There's no way it'd be allowed to go bust, so guess who pays for a bail out if it gets screwed up by a private company?
k up just the same as if it was Gov't owned. However, one thing is for sure , if it remains in Gov't hands its 100% that public money will fund it, in private hands its less likely to be required. As said, if Governments stuck to governing, they may make a decent job of it, as against the serial f
k ups which they persistently make on our (alledged) behalf, the Labour clowns being a spectacular manifestation of thus. If it's privately owned the taxpayer covers the loss and..... oh wait.
Edited by Hackney on Monday 13th October 16:37
Cheese Mechanic said:
The channel tunnel was built by private companies underwritten by Gov't. As for bail outs, the same people would bail out a private funded fk up just the same as if it was Gov't owned. However, one thing is for sure , if it remains in Gov't hands its 100% that public money will fund it, in private hands its less likely to be required.
As said, if Governments stuck to governing, they may make a decent job of it, as against the serial fk ups which they persistently make on our (alledged) behalf, the Labour clowns being a spectacular manifestation of thus.
I never suggested that the work wasn't done by private companies, however the fact remains that if it failed the people paying wouldn't be the private companies.k up just the same as if it was Gov't owned. However, one thing is for sure , if it remains in Gov't hands its 100% that public money will fund it, in private hands its less likely to be required. As said, if Governments stuck to governing, they may make a decent job of it, as against the serial f
k ups which they persistently make on our (alledged) behalf, the Labour clowns being a spectacular manifestation of thus. If a private company was told that it wasn't underwritten by the government, do you still think it would have happened?
The fact that it's not a majority share is rather irrelevant, do you honestly believe that if sold off and run down to the point that it was going to be closed the tax payer wouldn't bail it out?
If privatized, it should be understanding that it is no longer tax payer backed (and if it goes under it will be purchased for at the rate which would be paid by an asset stripping company).
Under those conditions (which I wouldn't see as unreasonable) do you think that anyone would be interested? I don't.
Unfortunately it seems that private companies seem to have the best of both worlds in cases like this.
Run it well and make a profit, great.
Cock it up to the point where it's going under, no worries, tax payer bail out.
Wyvern971 said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
The channel tunnel was built by private companies underwritten by Gov't. As for bail outs, the same people would bail out a private funded fk up just the same as if it was Gov't owned. However, one thing is for sure , if it remains in Gov't hands its 100% that public money will fund it, in private hands its less likely to be required.
As said, if Governments stuck to governing, they may make a decent job of it, as against the serial fk ups which they persistently make on our (alledged) behalf, the Labour clowns being a spectacular manifestation of thus.
I never suggested that the work wasn't done by private companies, however the fact remains that if it failed the people paying wouldn't be the private companies.k up just the same as if it was Gov't owned. However, one thing is for sure , if it remains in Gov't hands its 100% that public money will fund it, in private hands its less likely to be required. As said, if Governments stuck to governing, they may make a decent job of it, as against the serial f
k ups which they persistently make on our (alledged) behalf, the Labour clowns being a spectacular manifestation of thus. If a private company was told that it wasn't underwritten by the government, do you still think it would have happened?
The fact that it's not a majority share is rather irrelevant, do you honestly believe that if sold off and run down to the point that it was going to be closed the tax payer wouldn't bail it out?
If privatized, it should be understanding that it is no longer tax payer backed (and if it goes under it will be purchased for at the rate which would be paid by an asset stripping company).
Under those conditions (which I wouldn't see as unreasonable) do you think that anyone would be interested? I don't.
Unfortunately it seems that private companies seem to have the best of both worlds in cases like this.
Run it well and make a profit, great.
Cock it up to the point where it's going under, no worries, tax payer bail out.
Esseesse said:
Wyvern971 said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
Governements should keep to governing the country, not running railways and etc, they only make a fk of things. Sell it off.
Not being funny, but do you think any private company would have even attempted to build the channel tunnel?k of things. Sell it off. As a side note as it's effectively a monopoly due to lack of competition (as are most rail networks) how does privatizing it make sense?
There's no way it'd be allowed to go bust, so guess who pays for a bail out if it gets screwed up by a private company?
No railways should be privatised, because it's not realistic that someone might decide to build and run a competing line. Just like how roads should not be privatised.
Gubberment/councils stop competition with their planning regs, so how can you privatise something for the benefit of anyone, if you then won't let others compete?
The Consevative government have gone south in my estimations about as fast as anyone since the Scottish Referendum and their party conference.
Just a party of lying self-serving cretinous scum... and they wonder why members defect and people vote UKIP.
Dave
AyBee said:
Hackney said:
If it's publicly owned the taxpayer covers the loss and the taxpayer benefits from profits
If it's privately owned the taxpayer covers the loss and..... oh wait.
Your evidence being?If it's privately owned the taxpayer covers the loss and..... oh wait.
Which while not evidence is certainly of the opinion that "the same people" would bail out the private sector as the public.
Think of any major "bail out" that has happened recently, then who bailed it out.
From the Mail in Feb this year. "Royal Bank of Scotland is 82 per cent owned by taxpayers. Bank received a £46billion bail-out in 2008 and 2009"
From the Guardian in Sept this year. "Government has kicked off the sale of its stake in Lloyds, five years after it pumped £20bn into the bank"
From the BBC in Oct 2008. "The government is to pump billions of pounds of taxpayers money into three UK banks in one of the UK's biggest nationalisations. Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Lloyds TSB and HBOS will have a total of £37bn injected into them."
Hackney said:
AyBee said:
Hackney said:
If it's publicly owned the taxpayer covers the loss and the taxpayer benefits from profits
If it's privately owned the taxpayer covers the loss and..... oh wait.
Your evidence being?If it's privately owned the taxpayer covers the loss and..... oh wait.
Which while not evidence is certainly of the opinion that "the same people" would bail out the private sector as the public.
Think of any major "bail out" that has happened recently, then who bailed it out.
From the Mail in Feb this year. "Royal Bank of Scotland is 82 per cent owned by taxpayers. Bank received a £46billion bail-out in 2008 and 2009"
From the Guardian in Sept this year. "Government has kicked off the sale of its stake in Lloyds, five years after it pumped £20bn into the bank"
From the BBC in Oct 2008. "The government is to pump billions of pounds of taxpayers money into three UK banks in one of the UK's biggest nationalisations. Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Lloyds TSB and HBOS will have a total of £37bn injected into them."
The government doesn't bail out private companies; if Eurostar goes bust whilst in private ownership, the assets are sold off and another private company will buy them.
Hackney said:
The post I quoted, "As for bail outs, the same people would bail out a private funded fk up just the same as if it was Gov't owned"
Which while not evidence is certainly of the opinion that "the same people" would bail out the private sector as the public.
Think of any major "bail out" that has happened recently, then who bailed it out.
From the Mail in Feb this year. "Royal Bank of Scotland is 82 per cent owned by taxpayers. Bank received a £46billion bail-out in 2008 and 2009"
From the Guardian in Sept this year. "Government has kicked off the sale of its stake in Lloyds, five years after it pumped £20bn into the bank"
From the BBC in Oct 2008. "The government is to pump billions of pounds of taxpayers money into three UK banks in one of the UK's biggest nationalisations. Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Lloyds TSB and HBOS will have a total of £37bn injected into them."
I'm not sure you grasp quite how grim it would have been for ordinary punters and most businesses/employers (including local govt) if 2 of our major retail banks had gone pop. Not sure the govt had any choice and am quite sure that they would not have done it if they could have avoided it without visiting financial catastrophe on millions of innocent depositors.Which while not evidence is certainly of the opinion that "the same people" would bail out the private sector as the public.
Think of any major "bail out" that has happened recently, then who bailed it out.
From the Mail in Feb this year. "Royal Bank of Scotland is 82 per cent owned by taxpayers. Bank received a £46billion bail-out in 2008 and 2009"
From the Guardian in Sept this year. "Government has kicked off the sale of its stake in Lloyds, five years after it pumped £20bn into the bank"
From the BBC in Oct 2008. "The government is to pump billions of pounds of taxpayers money into three UK banks in one of the UK's biggest nationalisations. Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Lloyds TSB and HBOS will have a total of £37bn injected into them."
Bluebarge said:
I'm not sure you grasp quite how grim it would have been for ordinary punters and most businesses/employers (including local govt) if 2 of our major retail banks had gone pop. Not sure the govt had any choice and am quite sure that they would not have done it if they could have avoided it without visiting financial catastrophe on millions of innocent depositors.
I grasp how grim it would be. And I'm not saying the govt shouldn't have bailed them out. Although they shouldn't have got themselves in the position to need a bailout. I was asked for examples of private companies who have been bailed out by the govt/the public and gave some.AyBee said:
Hackney said:
AyBee said:
Hackney said:
If it's publicly owned the taxpayer covers the loss and the taxpayer benefits from profits
If it's privately owned the taxpayer covers the loss and..... oh wait.
Your evidence being?If it's privately owned the taxpayer covers the loss and..... oh wait.
Which while not evidence is certainly of the opinion that "the same people" would bail out the private sector as the public.
Think of any major "bail out" that has happened recently, then who bailed it out.
From the Mail in Feb this year. "Royal Bank of Scotland is 82 per cent owned by taxpayers. Bank received a £46billion bail-out in 2008 and 2009"
From the Guardian in Sept this year. "Government has kicked off the sale of its stake in Lloyds, five years after it pumped £20bn into the bank"
From the BBC in Oct 2008. "The government is to pump billions of pounds of taxpayers money into three UK banks in one of the UK's biggest nationalisations. Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Lloyds TSB and HBOS will have a total of £37bn injected into them."
The government doesn't bail out private companies; if Eurostar goes bust whilst in private ownership, the assets are sold off and another private company will buy them.
Just because (part of) their business involves the money of the general public that doesn't mean they're not private companies.
There's plenty of evidence that the government does bail out, and has bailed out, private companies
soad said:
Here we go again - closing down sale, everything must go. The government selling off, all it can get it's grubby hands on!
Selling off assets at rock bottom prices for fat cats/investors to get richer, while we are rewarded with poorer service and higher fares!
But how will we get our tax cuts if they don't sell stuff?Selling off assets at rock bottom prices for fat cats/investors to get richer, while we are rewarded with poorer service and higher fares!
AyBee said:
Hackney said:
AyBee said:
Hackney said:
If it's publicly owned the taxpayer covers the loss and the taxpayer benefits from profits
If it's privately owned the taxpayer covers the loss and..... oh wait.
Your evidence being?If it's privately owned the taxpayer covers the loss and..... oh wait.
Which while not evidence is certainly of the opinion that "the same people" would bail out the private sector as the public.
Think of any major "bail out" that has happened recently, then who bailed it out.
From the Mail in Feb this year. "Royal Bank of Scotland is 82 per cent owned by taxpayers. Bank received a £46billion bail-out in 2008 and 2009"
From the Guardian in Sept this year. "Government has kicked off the sale of its stake in Lloyds, five years after it pumped £20bn into the bank"
From the BBC in Oct 2008. "The government is to pump billions of pounds of taxpayers money into three UK banks in one of the UK's biggest nationalisations. Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Lloyds TSB and HBOS will have a total of £37bn injected into them."
The government doesn't bail out private companies; if Eurostar goes bust whilst in private ownership, the assets are sold off and another private company will buy them.
Actually the majority of bank money doesn't belong to Joe Public at all and never did. SOURCE.
soad said:
Here we go again - closing down sale, everything must go. The government selling off, all it can get it's grubby hands on!
Selling off assets at rock bottom prices for fat cats/investors to get richer, while we are rewarded with poorer service and higher fares!
Not Eurostar granted but look at the difference between 'privatised' TOC operators and Eastcoast (ran as a franchise until the franchise 'winners' decided to take profit and subsidies then run when the going got tough) now ran by the Government as close-to-renationalised as you're going to get.Selling off assets at rock bottom prices for fat cats/investors to get richer, while we are rewarded with poorer service and higher fares!
It's flourishing with better customer satisfaction and ploughing profits back into the kitty rather than taking government subsidy and lining shareholder pockets.
No doubt that will up for sale soon...
legzr1 said:
Not Eurostar granted but look at the difference between 'privatised' TOC operators and Eastcoast (ran as a franchise until the franchise 'winners' decided to take profit and subsidies then run when the going got tough) now ran by the Government as close-to-renationalised as you're going to get.
It's flourishing with better customer satisfaction and ploughing profits back into the kitty rather than taking government subsidy and lining shareholder pockets.
No doubt that will up for sale soon...
After a shady valuation by some old Bully mates, I should imagine..It's flourishing with better customer satisfaction and ploughing profits back into the kitty rather than taking government subsidy and lining shareholder pockets.
No doubt that will up for sale soon...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff