Yes she can have a pass too. 😀
Grinning gammon guy was quite scary.
Clearly getting his ‘news’ from GeeBeebies.
I’m sure grinning gammon guy would love that
she can have a pass too
Yeah you need to be a little less casual with your executions. Not so much of the scattergun approach.
I shouldn’t watch QT, it stirs the psychopathic side of my personality.
Anyway, away from murderous fantasies, I don’t think Mick Lynch did himself any favours tonight, largely because Fiona Bruce (who also should be shot) wouldn’t let him finish his points.
Only 60% more than the National average full time salary? Why’s he not striking?
I dunno, but considering his missus is on double what he is, he maybe doesn’t feel the need.
He’s coming over in the Aston on Monday, I’ll ask.
I don’t think Mick Lynch did himself any favours tonight,
Telling a Tory politician or an ignorant TV interviewer that they are talking twaddle is one thing, but if he had appeared on QT all combative and started accusing members of the audience of talking twaddle whilst it might have entertained you it is unlikely that it would have amused his executive as they carried a postmortem into the RMT Question Time PR disaster.
but if he had appeared on QT all combative
No what I meant was he shouldn’t have gone on in the first place. He did as well as he could in the circumstances, but could have avoided it.
Fiona Bruce is a f****** disgrace BTW. Since she took over it’s more like The Jeremy Kyle show than a serious current affairs programme.
It was frustrating to watch as some of the points raised by the audience weren’t shut down by Mick, but rightly so in the setting of the show, telling idiot ignorant members of the public they are idiots won’t go down well and would only be used by the Tory press to fuel the culture war, Mick had to be there otherwise it would have looked like cowardice, but being there everything he said would be used against him, the agenda is the create an us and them divide between rail workers/unions and the public/Torys.
I loved the comments from the guy on about how it’s archaic that Kings Cross staff can’t work at Euston and drew comparisons with his own job, the stupidity was spectacular, I have a job so all other jobs must work the same as mine does. The west coast and east coast main lines were built by different companies will have different equipment, features and risks, let alone have different train operating companies running out of them, just because something is close doesn’t make it the same.
When you talk to joe public they have zero understanding or experience of infrastructure and national scale industry, they think repairing a set of points at Euston is like calling out a plumber, the Torys use this dumbing down oversimplification to make out staff are being awkward and hiding behind Elf and Safety, just use some good Ole Common Sense.
No what I meant was he shouldn’t have gone on in the first place.
Of course he should have appeared on QT. There's a national dispute going on which is headline news and causing a lot of public inconvenience.
The issue would have been discussed whether he was there or not. Refusal to appear would have been cast as, cowardice, contempt, and not interested in the general public's opinion.
I thought he put the RMT's case well, although as I previously said he should made the point the RMT member made about the failures connected to the fragmentation of the national railways due to privatisation.
Had he not been on the panel I am sure that there would have very little support for the RMT from whoever took his place when the issue came up and it was extensively discussed.
Hey ernie ‘lynch’, not going to have an Old Ben and Obi Wan moment here are we..
Turns out Mick Lynch is an avid mtber and a long time forumite
I think clearly Mick Lynch should have gone on QT but Fiona Bruce shouldn't have.
When you talk to joe public they have zero understanding or experience of infrastructure and national scale industry,
Working for an electricity distribution grid, I find that an interesting comment. Probably true, but equally they probably don’t understand how the cloud works. Maybe that is infrastructure these days of course.
Avid mtber
And there’s a juicy sticky piston joke in there somewhere.
Why is it Tory voters' loyalty to the UK is always disgusted by nationalisation? I mean it's got national in the damn title.
Also, hated the small business bloke with 30 employees - there's always one of them telling everyone else how they should all change to his way of doing business. Shaking his head etc.
Tories are programmed to not know detail but just keep repeating expired lies. And making analogies to dinosaurs, rather than knowing anything other than the ins and outs of inheritance tax.
Dimbleby was just as bad as Bruce.
Also, hated the small business bloke with 30 employees – there’s always one of them telling everyone else how they should all change to his way of doing business. Shaking his head etc.
I once worked for a carbon copy of this bloke at his haulage company. His foul attitude towards his drivers, his casual tax dodging, his rabid hatred of the ‘jumped up shop steward’ John Prescott, all combined to motivate me to get a job where making money wasn’t valued over people. I’m now twenty odd years into an NHS career, and am still massively triggered by that kind of self righteous, ignorant, arrogant attitude. Twunt. He’s dead now. Shame.
The blood of rebels flows through the veins of a Lynch muckytee
I get the feeling that a lot of people are disappointed that Lynch didn’t really seem to get in his stride last night. I kinda was myself but on reflection, I don’t think he had much opportunity. Bruce can cut his answers short and he was never going to get the chance to deliver the material he has these past weeks in interviews with news “presenters” and debate shows with politicians. QT just doesn’t work that way. (Of course it could be argued that QT doesn’t work at all.) Someone else mentioned it, but I agree that he was probably holding back a bit. Some of the audience comments were stupid, but he was never going to win anyone over by putting down a member of the public.
I’d love to hear more voices like him in the media. We just don’t hear enough of someone articulately arguing for more equality for workers and a fairer share of the pot.
Check shirt guy can **** right off. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s outed as some kind of plant later today. 😀
The Daily Mail has had a relentless and vicious campaign against the RMT, their report of last night's QT suggests that in their eyes he preformed better than some on here think - the most they could come up with was that he "split the audience".
Actually I thought their whole article was remarkably fair and in sharp contrast with some of the vile anti-RMT stuff they have been publishing. I can't help thinking that one of their reporters might be getting a bollocking later today.
Actually I thought their whole article was remarkably fair and in sharp contrast with some of the vile anti-RMT stuff they have been publishing.
I reckon that's because the mail knows that he's got some public support so they're not taking full-on sides at this point.
Mail might well be on the right, but it wants to sell papers as well as shape the stories.
Just like the Brexit MEP guy was making sure the narrative was about paying these workers - but tax cuts tax cuts, debt as a percentage of GDP and more economic bollocks...
I'm guessing the mail are frantically looking for something in Lynch's closet.
David Lynch, Ernie Lynch and now Mick Lynch. All getting my attention recently.
ernielynch
Free MemberActually I thought their whole article was remarkably fair and in sharp contrast with some of the vile anti-RMT stuff they have been publishing. I can’t help thinking that one of their reporters might be getting a bollocking later today.
Possibly they've noticed how the usual media hatchets just bounce off him? Suppose it depends how much they're writing to the wider part of their audience rather than to the people that only need to hear the words "trade union" and hate him, and so don't need any more attack pieces.
Or, to put it another way, some articles are to feed off opinion and some are to drive it.
Kenny Lynch?
Albert Lynch?
Fascinating and perceptive insights (particularly for someone who doesn't watch the telly) provided by some of the controversialist usuals.
My take is nationalise the non-moving parts (track/signals/buildings/land) and privatise the moving parts (employees/fares/cleaning/maintenance). This should give the best of both worlds where fares are competitive on a good network. The rolling stock is a kind of middle-ground where you need a bit of help with leasing/manufacturing so TOCs will update stock.
How exactly does privatising the "moving parts" give the best of both worlds?
At the risk of pointing out the obvious we have had privatised fares for some time and have just ended up with a confusing mess.
As for maintenance. Do you not recall why the private Railtrack got replaced by Network Rail?
My take is nationalise the non-moving parts (track/signals/buildings/land) and privatise the moving parts (employees/fares/cleaning/maintenance). This should give the best of both worlds where fares are competitive on a good network. The rolling stock is a kind of middle-ground where you need a bit of help with leasing/manufacturing so TOCs will update stock.
Err, thats exactly what happened in 96/97. The non-moving parts side went bust, after failing to maintain the network properly, and resulting in a number of accidents and deaths. Eventually the Government stepped in and formed Network Rail which is wholly Government owned. The franchising of the routes didnt go well either, with a number of franchisees going bust. The Government now runs all of the train operating routes, but subs out their running to the Operator, who does that for a fixed fee, with no financial involvement.
The only bit the same is the rolling stock providers who provide the trains to the companies who cannot buy their own.
The only cloud about this is the DfT who run it all, and couldnt organise anything. We've now got hybrid trains running London to Edinburgh on electric power all day long, but having to lug around 40 tons of mnon-used diesel engine and diesel fuel, hammering their efficiency, as well as putting up their lease cost to over double the cost of the previous generation of trains, and extra manitenance cost, and complexity in their operation.. All specified by the DfT, not the Train operating Companies, who wanted an electric only train.
where fares are competitive
If privatisation drives down fares it makes you wonder why the government needs to intervene.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rail-fares-capped-to-prevent-high-increases-for-passengers
If everything is nationalised, then there is no incentive to improve. If everything is private, there is no incentive to invest. There must be a mid-point.
It makes more sense to have the track, stations and signalling nationalised, then let TOC's run services on that. The franchise model wasn't great but at least it opened up the network for use by several TOC's. Why not make London commuters pay more than Highland off-peak users?
If everything is nationalised, then there is no incentive to improve
Are you serious? So you're saying all NHS staff, education, civil servants....
I think you might benefit from a bit of advice/information before making statements like that.
I'm talking in Macro-economic terms.
I’m talking in Macro-economic terms.
Still doesnt make your claim correct although it does give a good idea where your ideological bias comes from.
Incentives to work are microenomic. You need to understand the labour theory of value, it applies to both state and privately run institutions. Do you imagine people get a job in the state sector and hang up their hats?
finephilly - that’s already the case, the infrastructure is nationalised, it’s owned by and maintained by Network rail which is a government owned company.
You can run trains under a franchise or purely commercially in some way I forget the name of it, but search up Lumo trains
If everything is nationalised, then there is no incentive to improve.
At what point do we start benefiting from incentive driven privatised services?
If you nationalised a supermarket chain, that would probably end up with rows and rows of porridge oats though, right?
I'm not talking about the incentive to work or labour eceonomics - I get that everyone wants to do that and it adds value. By all means, let the RMT have a 10% rise or whatever.
I'm talking about the situation as a whole, the network has massive potential for improvement (which I can only see being provided by public money) and if we go to a place where the govt gives out contracts to operators, where's the value for consumers?
Track and trace, PPE, railways, water, GP surgeries, power, academy schools, didn't you notice the improvements?
You can run trains under a franchise or purely commercially in some way I forget the name of it, but search up Lumo trains
You cannot run trains under a franchise any more, from May 21, all TOCs are Government, or Local Authority controlled. The old franchises were given up, or taken away, and some of the incumbents were allowed to carry on running them under a Government Contract, where they get a set fee to run the trains.All controls,services, and contracts are set by the DfT, so blame them if your service is dire.
Yes, Lumo, Grand Central and Hull trains are separate,'Open Access Operators'. They pay a fee to NR to run their trains on the network. Their only income is from fares, they are not able to access the subsidies available to many Operators (the Government paying itself to run trains).There must be some money in it as Lumo spent a lot setting up, and leasing their new trains. But, they all run on what is the most lucrative line, the East Coast Mainline. Attempts have been made to run open access along the West Coast Mainline, but the operators gave up because of covid.
At what point do we start benefiting from incentive driven privatised services?
well that very much depends on whether you are a shareholder or cattle a passenger, really.
If you nationalised a supermarket chain, that would probably end up with rows and rows of porridge oats though, right?
That is a very different business, though. With supermarkets, there’s strong competition, and all of the income comes directly from the customers, who can choose between five or six different shops. So the stores have big incentives to provide value, and variety to attract the money.
With rail (now I’m not an expert, but from what I can see) on the other hand, competition is limited as routes and timetables are saturated, and most importantly, the majority of the money comes from gov subsidy/contract, so there’s no incentive to please/innovate for the customer. Profit margins are improved by cutting costs and corners, rather than increasing market share.
We need to decide as a nation whether public transport is a business, or a public service, and manage it appropriately. Some things shouldn’t be for profit, and if the government (ie we, via taxes) are paying for it, then it’s one of them. See also Healthcare, Education.
I'm taking the view that a rail ticket is pretty much a private good (as I said before, some regulation or capping is needed), so can be exchanged with a bus/car/taxi journey.
I’ve just posted my ballot paper off today. I won’t say which way I voted as it’s supposed to be a secret ballot, but it’s the first time in 15yrs and several disputes that I’ve unhesitatingly known where my X was going to go.
If you nationalised a supermarket chain, that would probably end up with rows and rows of porridge oats though, right?
Well if you put porridge oats to one side and focus on topic being discussed - the railways, would you say that the French Railways, widely seen as among the most advanced in the world, has been held back because it is a nationalised industry?
The French have invested in excellent trains and an extensive highspeed network (as part of an EU-wide collab). They also have under-used TGV trains and poor frequency (compared to the UK) in rural areas.
There are alternative means of transport available to UK travellers; this can be taken on directly by allowing private operators/ harnessing a profit motive to encourage train travel.
'A private good is the opposite of a public good. Public goods are generally open for all to use (like trains) and consumption by one party does not deter another party's ability to use it. It is also not excludable; preventing the use of the good by another is not possible.' Investopedia
Most people would be wise enough to keep their gobs shut on topics which they clearly know nothing about, but hey you always get the odd one.
Well if you buy a train ticket and board a train, that limits the capacity of that train by one, so surely that would make it a private good?
so surely that would make it a private good?
You clearly havent used one of the UK privatised train services (or some of the Japanese ones for that matter).
So if you drink a glass of water no-one else can drink it (at least for a while) but it's still a public good. Pretensious economese does not enhance an argument.
