Tuesday, 2 January 2018

And the 2018 prize for the most economically stupid banner goes to...

From here.


11 comments:

Bayard said...

Especially ironic when the RMT have been going round saying that there are too many overlapping levels of management in the railways.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Genius. How come I didn't spot that?

Mike W said...

Or they could have at tried a free market type gambit on the public: Increased fares = fewer passengers.Is that Government policy? Not very snappy though.But would have at least appeared less selfish.

In real world economics though, those poor sods who have tied themselves to the Birmingham or Swindon lines to London for work are finding out the real power of rents and rentseeking. I think Midlands line should paint their trains magnolia with catchy slogans like, 'let the train take your surplus',or,'Nope, there was no clever individual escape from London prices and you now have to live in fucking Birmingham for the next 20 years mate' or such like.

Graeme said...

The further from London, the more expensive the season ticket

DBC Reed said...

Dave Wetzel, who was 2nd in command at TFL until almost literally thrown into the street by the dyed-blond bombshell, used to say that all fares should be free and paid for out of LVT on the catchment areas of all commuter train lines and bus routes. Can't see the problem myself.Obviously if you are a comedy Tory and member of the Bullingdon Club things might appear differently.(How did the Buller recover from having the piss ripped out of it by insider Evelyn Waugh in two best sellers including the televised Brideshead Revisited?Our elites are so sand bagged with shit they are bomb-proof.)

Lola said...

DBCR. Your posts are getting ever more bizarre - I really couldn't follow that one.

Separately this is quite a good piece:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/02/dont-blame-rail-companies-franchise-systems-failings/ written, please note, by Tom Harris, and ex labour MP.

Lola said...

DBCR. Having re-read your comment, I am overall no wiser, but I can see where you are coming from in your first sentence. I don't agree with it though.
How about transport operators, bus and rail, are paid some share of LVT receipts to reflect how their investment lifts land prices? Would not that be simpler and better. It would also mean that there would still be a 'price' - the rail fare to inform passengers. (O/T a bit - I really don't like being called a customer of the railway. I like to be called a passenger. The same applies to HMRC who call me a 'customer'. What?! I am a 'taxpayer'.)

Mike W said...

(O/T a bit - I really don't like being called a customer of the railway. I like to be called a passenger. The same applies to HMRC who call me a 'customer'. What?! I am a 'taxpayer'.)

Agreed

In terms of GUV like HMRC or Passport etc, etc.I'm not a 'customer' that implies a market, and that I have a choice if I don't like what I get. I'm not sure about 'service user' or 'client' either. 'Stake Holder'? Applicant? BBC TV licence and my fishing licence and we are back to 'customer' again. Ho hum.

Lola said...

Mike W. How about 'serf'?

Bayard said...

DBCR, AFAICS, the Tories would like to treat the railways as a business, but that would mean letting them set fares at what level they liked, which would result in the Revenge of the Commuters at the next election. So they pay lip service to the idea of the railways as a public service (especially when there is a strike or some such). However, as Dave W points out, if they are a public service, they ought to be free. The result is we end up with a very British fudge.

Lola said...

Bayard. Agreed. And there is another dimension to that that the Tories would hate - as fares rise so house prices would fall.