UK government to sell Eurostar stake before general election
Discussion
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/13/go...
This strikes me as very short-termist. Why sell off Eurostar? £300M is pocket change. I agree with privatization and competition in general, but not in areas where it isn't realistically possible for there to actually be any competition.
This strikes me as very short-termist. Why sell off Eurostar? £300M is pocket change. I agree with privatization and competition in general, but not in areas where it isn't realistically possible for there to actually be any competition.
Governements should keep to governing the country, not running railways and etc, they only make a f
k of things. Sell it off.
I see the Labour cretins are mouthing off in opposing this. Typical hypocrisy from them, the selling off being prompted to raise monies to pay off the huge debts the Labour clowns saddled us with.
Their posturing would be hilarious if it were not so hideously sickening.
k of things. Sell it off.I see the Labour cretins are mouthing off in opposing this. Typical hypocrisy from them, the selling off being prompted to raise monies to pay off the huge debts the Labour clowns saddled us with.
Their posturing would be hilarious if it were not so hideously sickening.
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?
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.
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. The whole point about privatisation and the free market is that if someone is making a stack of money, competitors will be encouraged to setup competing businesses to make some of that money too. As competition increases companies will have to work hard to streamline their businesses to stay afloat (this is the advantage over public sector which has much less incentive). This means in theory you should be left with only efficient companies providing a good (or at least acceptable) service for reasonably low cost to the user.
There is no chance of the above happening with Eurostar, or the other railways in the UK.
There is no chance of the above happening with Eurostar, or the other railways in the UK.
Edited by Esseesse on Monday 13th October 12:19
Cheese Mechanic said:
The channel tunnel was built by private companies underwritten by Gov't.
That sounds like it was built by the government, wrapped up in such a way to keep 'privatise everything' Tory voters happy to me.Private sector companies that rely 100% on government contracts are in fact the public sector pretending not to be.
The point about privatisation is that govts have no place running commercial services unless there is no commercial entity who will do it for them. The civil service is inherently bad at running commercial enterprises because it is totally risk-averse and incapable of making decisions quickly; it is also subject to having a new CEO appointed every 5 years whose views are often diametrically opposed to the previous one.
This is not a "public service" as the term is conventionally used. It is a travel service that competes with private operators (airlines/coach companies) and it is simply not appropriate for the state to be dabbling in that market unless there is some strong social need. Offering cheap trips to Paris is not a social need.
Besides, the govt needs cash to pay down debt, and it needs to reduce the deficit. It either taxes Joe Public (taxing business tends to lead to jobs leaking away to other countries) or it sells off assets the Govt. doesn't really need. I know which I'd prefer.
This is not a "public service" as the term is conventionally used. It is a travel service that competes with private operators (airlines/coach companies) and it is simply not appropriate for the state to be dabbling in that market unless there is some strong social need. Offering cheap trips to Paris is not a social need.
Besides, the govt needs cash to pay down debt, and it needs to reduce the deficit. It either taxes Joe Public (taxing business tends to lead to jobs leaking away to other countries) or it sells off assets the Govt. doesn't really need. I know which I'd prefer.
Esseesse said:
The whole point about privatisation and the free market is that if someone is making a stack of money, competitors will be encouraged to setup competing businesses to make some of that money too. As competition increases companies will have to work hard to streamline their businesses to stay afloat (this is the advantage over public sector which has much less incentive). This means in theory you should be left with only efficient companies providing a good (or at least acceptable) service for reasonably low cost to the user.
There is no chance of the above happening with Eurostar, or the other railways in the UK.
German rail operator Deutsche Bahn applied in 2011 to run trains through the tunnel. Last year the train design (Siemens ICE3) was approved. The service planned to start this year I think, but delays in design and build have put it back to 2016.There is no chance of the above happening with Eurostar, or the other railways in the UK.
Edited by Esseesse on Monday 13th October 12:19
If they sell for £300m (which they wont) we'll kiss goodbye to £7.5m a year of profits it generates, which is of course around a 2.4% annual return on investment, National Debt costs us 3% a year to fund so we'll gain .6% of £300m or about £1.8m a year - almost meaningless in terms of finances for a Nation the size of the UK.
I suspect that a tiny number of people 'in the city' will do very well out of it, when it's discovered it's actually worth roughly twice what we sold it for - who no doubt, purely by coincidence would have gone to school with prominent cabinet members or be otherwise linked with them.
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.
I suspect that a tiny number of people 'in the city' will do very well out of it, when it's discovered it's actually worth roughly twice what we sold it for - who no doubt, purely by coincidence would have gone to school with prominent cabinet members or be otherwise linked with them.
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.
MitchT said:
If the tunnel is making money for the government then selling it is tantamount to surrendering their ability to catch fish in return for a box of fish.
Until you find out that their box of fish only produce 5 baby fishies every year and actually, the box of fish will produce 10 baby fishies every year in a different pond...Or
Their box of fish costs them 10 fishies every year in interest to the people they borrowed their fish from, so if they're only gaining 5 fishies per year, they're losing fishies every year.
Headlines are great - they can put across the sensational headlines without giving any detail
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff