Canal World

Join us absolutely Free in just two minutes to gain access to all our features. Once registered, you will be able to submit new content and get answers to your all your canal & boating questions all for absolutely Free!

Higgs

Member
  • Content count

    3,255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Higgs last won the day on March 11

Higgs had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

345 Excellent

About Higgs

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Erm
  1. Private marinas are NOT Trust's waterway. The Network Access Agreement does not give CRT ownership rights over the marina. CRT have no legal enforcement rights inside a marina. CRT have no legal right to a licence or the fee, unless a boat makes use of the Trust's waterway. A marina's terms and conditions, requiring the possession of a licence, do not constitute statutory powers of enforcement. As with PPI, the consumer is being forced to buy the unnecessary. Both marina and CRT are acting in their own interests and not in the interests of the consumer - the moorer.

  2. They just exploit every angle they can. It's a financial playground. They're glorified spivs.
  3. If we remove the subsidy to the franchises, we know what happens. They won't pay what it costs to maintain a safe infrastructure. Safety will suffer and did in the previous private arrangement. The shareholders still get their dividends. It is not the shareholders' or the franchises' moral bother, to ask questions of how they get the money, as long as they get it.
  4. "The three largest dividend payers – Northern Rail, Transpennine Express and Virgin Trains – together paid out nearly £100m last year after receiving over £1billion in public funds." That would be £900 million that went towards providing maintenance to the infrastructure, for the franchises to use, for which they should pay the going rate and haven't. That's £900 million that subsidises the cost of rail fares. That's £100 million that the taxpayer just P's into the wind. In the scheme of things, the taxpayer cannot afford to do that. The franchises are economically unsustainable without public funding.
  5. As I say - if it isn't too obscene a suggestion, pay for it all through private finance only. That's an alternative. If it can't be done, it isn't truly privatised. When it can be done, make your argument for such a system. Public money is not primarily for propping up private failings, and rewarding the shareholders anyway. It is on a par with rewarding executives for failures. Is that the business rationale that makes you 'high-minded'?
  6. That's infinitely more easy to accept, than it going into the pockets of shareholders. £200 million.
  7. The railways suffered under Railtrack. After compensations it paid out, following Hatfield, it turned a loss. Going to the government for financial help, it then used that to pay its shareholders. That is the unacceptable face of private involvement. Profits above safety. And now, private involvement can't make it without public money. As Railtrack, and a private company, maybe they should have increased the costs to the rail franchises (by £4 billions a year), then we might have had a safe rail system under a private system. If you want to maintain that a private rail system is the way to go - pay for it to operate, 100% private funding.
  8. The subsidy is used by Network rail, and it reduces the bill that would otherwise be charged in full to the railway franchises. I suppose this is all due to the EU rule that private companies cannot be subsidised and is circumvented by an indirect subsidy. In a similar way, the use of working tax credits to indirectly subsidise/reduce the wage liabilities of companies. There are some 4.9 million people on less than a living wage. Tax credits associated with such low wages is running at £30 billion a year. A living wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs. The taxpayer meets those payment levels needed to provide an income for the basics. Credit cards were another means of providing money that could be circulated. This creates another income for the private sector, in interest payments. The ways in which the private sector sucks up peoples'/taxpayers' money is never ending, or likely to be changing any time soon.
  9. The shareholders of the rail companies and the rail companies are onto a good thing, but are the taxpayers. It's a subsidy. Take it away and see if the rail companies could afford to pay the shareholders £200 million. What could we do with £4 billion, other than treat shareholders.
  10. Why should the taxpayer indirectly subsidise business that then pay dividends to its shareholders. Surely, if a business cannot function without subsidy, it isn't self supporting. Why for instance shouldn't we make the rail passenger carrying companies pay the realistic cost of the rail network maintenance. The passengers would, of course, see an increase in fares. Although we have a privatised sector, it isn't actually functioning on its own. It should. So, privatisation hasn't exactly relieved the taxpayer of a financial burden. The only reason for keeping the rail network private would be if it could be proved to cost more to subsidise than the £4 billions it currently does to the taxpayer, if nationalised.
  11. But we pay the railways indirectly over £4 billion a year in subsidies. And working tax credits is also an indirect subsidy. We've been propping up banks. Service in general is rubbish. We're being mugged.
  12. I think that quote of Napoleon is daft.
  13. I actually didn't think those seven quoted words deserved the verbal tirade you posted. It was over the top. As someone who falls within one of the categories you used to illustrate an unlucky occurrence, yes, it did knock the crap out of me for some time following. I don't believe you can credit luck with governing ultimate success or failure. We all make plans, if they don't work out, it is generally because of something unforeseen. And that can be anything from over estimating ability or some corrupting factor. I couldn't have read into those seven words any criticism of myself being at fault, even though my plans had been shot through. Luck or being unlucky doesn't enter into it. The premise of your argument was fallacious. Believing in luck is similar to that of fate. Planning may not be infallible, but it's what most of us do. Luck is going to be a very unreliable planning aid. Life can be made easier by planning. The use of a bit of foresight. It isn't always perfect foresight.
  14. I will literally be voting for the constituency candidate. I will also be voting for the candidate's leader. I may not be voting for the party, but it may amount to the same thing. How far does splitting hairs have to go.
  15. This election is not going to be typical.