All the ticket sales and TV rights were bunched up and are only included in this quarter for some reason, it will boost this quarter at the expense of previous quarters when the amounts were actually paid. Strange way of doing it of you ask me!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
All the ticket sales and TV rights were bunched up and are only included in this quarter for some reason, it will boost this quarter at the expense of previous quarters when the amounts were actually paid. Strange way of doing it of you ask me!
Full growth? What exactly does that mean? At what level is England achieving full growth, 2%, 5%, 10%?! Now, there is little doubt that the austerity measures of the conservative government restricted growth since they have been in power, but make some vague declaration that there will never be 'full growth' unless there is some wholesale change is a troubling statement. Disregarding semantics, you certainly have a point that growth will be retarded for some time, yet one might also make the point that having slightly slower growth in return for slashing the deficit is a good trade. The conservatives have thus far failed to do either, yet were the Uk to get to the point that one could talk about 'full growth' then surely the debate must arise as to whether it is worth sacrificing a few points of growth in exchange for slashing the deficit?
Jezbollah
Member
Labour needs a complete purging of all the New Labour faces before I can fathom considering voting for them. They are partly responsible in the past for a lot of the attacks against the coalition - it's that hypocrisy that is a big turn off for me.
Ed is one of those faces, and doesn't seem to display any sense of backbone needed for a premiere statesman. The "Rabbit in headlights" look is still there - he looks out of his depth. And the Union trouble alone will be enough to sink him if that goes south.
Ed is one of those faces, and doesn't seem to display any sense of backbone needed for a premiere statesman. The "Rabbit in headlights" look is still there - he looks out of his depth. And the Union trouble alone will be enough to sink him if that goes south.
I should have been clearer, on target growth of around 2% would be the norm I suppose? I guess just less stagnant, you can hardly call 0.2% growth can you?
Sir_Crocodile
Member
People who would have to leave the shadow cabinet before I would consider voting labour:
Ed Balls
Ed Milliband
Andy Burnham
Yvette Cooper
I also don't think much of:
Douglas Alexander
Harriet Harman
Sadiq Khan
Chuka Umunna
Caroline Flint
Tom Watson
But their existance wouldn't stop me from voting labour.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Not really. A lot of the growth this quarter (around 0.4%) is just delayed from Q2 and at least 0.2% will be from the Olympics. If growth for Q3 is around 0.9% or higher then I think it is light at the end of the tunnel, but we've got it at 0.7%, which is stagnation in our book. Q4 will be anywhere between -0.5 and 0.3% as it is so weather dependent.
Whatever happens, I do hope that people just ignore the preliminary figures. They are completely worthless. I had a junior do a count of revisions since 2010 Q2 from preliminary to final figures, and we've had around +1.0% worth of revisions in just two years from the ONS which is not a great record. The bank still feels there is around +0.2-0.4% worth of growth not yet in the official figures that will be added eventually through revisions, that figure was 0.8% in June, so the ONS are reaching the City consensus (the peak to trough of the double dip is around -0.7%, not the -1.4% initially measured), just slowly.
Yes, I agreed that 0.2% could hardly be called growth, yet this idea of full growth, whether at 2% or any other target seems foolish to me. There are so many variables to take into account, at best one can declare growth to be "good or bad", but beyond that I don't feel it is worth categorizing. To be frank, any positive growth is a good thing in the end, whether it be .2 or 2 percent.
CyclopsRock
Member
GDP growth is a terrible measure these days anyway, even aside from pre-lim figure hashes. The fact that the government could borrow 100bn and boost growth shows how ridiculous the measure is.
CyclopsRock
Member
Ah, I didn't realise that. That is a bit odd. I guess it doesn't really matter anyway. Looking at GDP on a per quarter basis is like trying to ascertain the existence of AGW climate change on the basis of whether yesterday was colder than today.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
I appreciate Harriet because she has that special knack for venom and kicking the boot in that Ed so sorely lacks, and you always need at least one rip-roaring 'Return Fire' cannon in your party.
Whats wrong with Tom though? His single minded dedication to raking Murdoch and co over the hot coals was one of the only times I've actually felt like a politician is a human being. He's also superbly knowledgeable on digital areas of the economy so as to combat all those fucking crazy policies that could ever creep in.
I do still find it weird David Millaband didn't win. I mean probably not, because I guess all the underlings didnt want another smooth looking bastard to keep them all underheel and fancied their chances of manipulating the one that looks like a sixth former, but the end result is a hit for the whole party. Maybe if they're both in a horrible car crash and Ed's brain is transplanted to David's body. Yes. Make the arrangements.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Depends on which government, trend growth under Labour was ~ 2%, but that is quite low by historical standards, under Major/Thatcher trend growth was ~3%, and our 20 year post-war period saw ~4% trend growth because of reindustrialisation. This government should be aiming for 2.5-3.5% as a good target. An average of 0.7% per quarter is a reasonable target in normal times, anything below that should be considered a failure. Either way these are not normal times, so while 0.2% is not much of an achievement, it is better than an economic contraction.
Another indicator that has gone negative is the bank's proprietary work clothes purchasing index. We have do a monthly survey with leading clothes retailers and supermarkets around the country and when there is employment growth we find that our index is positive, when it is negative the economy is losing jobs. Though it is limited to service sector jobs, it is pretty accurate at predicting unemployment figures. The index went negative this month so I think the ONS will catch on in the December release. Though it is nothing like as bad as the negative we saw this time last year which was deep in negative territory (and it coincided with unemployment rising very rapidly). The trend is downwards and increasing.
CyclopsRock
Member
If you're on an enquiry comittee, you shouldn't have "single minded dedication to raking Murdoch and co over the hot coals" - you should have single minded dedication to establishing the facts, and then decide if he needs raking over the coals. Cheerleading people with such clear pre-defined conclusions is absolute anathema to the whole point of these things.
I think at this point with Murdoch its pretty clear cut, and any other conclusion with respect to the legality of some of his decisions over the years anyway, is naive.
CyclopsRock
Member
Yeah, but they should be just that - conclusions.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
His expenses + being a real scuzzbucket as whip, I remember him meriting plenty of eye mentions back then. The Murdoch stuff was only self defence so I don't think anything of him there. The one thing that keeps him on the bottom list as opposed to the top is that he's normally bang on when it comes to anything IT/Internet/Gaming Related, like the antivaz or something. Probably since he actually plays games, whereas the only thing Vaz sees in them is column inches.
No, the MP's aren't that stupid, by and large they voted for him over ed. It was the usual union short sighted stupidity that did for David.
Just on sunday Len McClusky was talking about getting rid of all the former blair era guys...just as they're starting to get decent poll numbers he wants to start a civil war?
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
What do I always say? Ed Milliband is nowhere near as bad as the critics say. Read the Telegraph, they've been begrudgingly praising him for ages.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
As far as I'm concerned he's part of why we're in the mess we're in so I'll never vote for him.
Plus he always gives off the air of a sneaky school prefect trying to catch you out on something which doesn't help matters, but I guess that's a lookism.
CyclopsRock
Member
There are also virtues to low expectations...
What? Just guilty by association or something?
Look at the man. Smouldering. Probably goes at it like a jackhammer, to quote Barry Shitpeas.
CyclopsRock
Member
Well he was Gordon Brown's SpAd for 5 years and then made chariman of the treasury's Council of Economic Advisers. Later still, he was appointed to the cabinet. If, during this time, he had no impact on Labour's economic policy, you have to seriously question his effectiveness.
He was a special advisor to the Chancellor (Brown) for 5 years, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and a prominent cabinet minister. That's a little more than being guilty by association. He is therefore at least partly responsible for the disastrous economic policies of the previous government. He was too deep in New Labour for me to ever even consider voting for him, along with Sir_Crocodile. Labour really should have cleared out the remnants of New Labour, but instead they have chosen to cling on to them. They need a good couple of parliaments out of power to get their own house in order, just as the Tories did in 1997.
No stories about how his family survived the Holocaust will sway me. He's just another Oxbridge PPE wanker. Makes no difference whether it's Labour or Conservative.
I just saw John Snow, on Channel 4 News, ask a Labour representative, with a perfectly straight face, whether the "Margaret Thatcher Blue" on the wall was significant.
I can draw one of two conclusions from this:
1) John Snow is suffering from Alzheimer's disease
2) Political commentary in the UK media has sunken to its lowest level in recorded history
I can draw one of two conclusions from this:
1) John Snow is suffering from Alzheimer's disease
2) Political commentary in the UK media has sunken to its lowest level in recorded history
Haha. So the Department of transport can't add up, apparently, and it only took them several months and a legal challenge for them to even realise that they might be incompetent. FirstGroups contract has been cancelled. I wonder how many Franchises have been awarded under false pretences? There needs to be a public inquiry in to how to operate and fund the rail service. This franchise system does not work for passengers. The prices are among the highest in Europe, the quality of the service is poor, and and customer satisfaction is extremely low.
The civil service are already getting blamed. Some staff have been suspended. Justine Greening should resign from the cabinet.
So if Virgin hadn't kicked up such a fuss, then this contract would have been awarded, and would likely have collapsed at some point. What a mess.
EDIT: And Justine Greening is apparently a trained accountant. Lol. You couldn't make this stuff up.
The civil service are already getting blamed. Some staff have been suspended. Justine Greening should resign from the cabinet.
So if Virgin hadn't kicked up such a fuss, then this contract would have been awarded, and would likely have collapsed at some point. What a mess.
EDIT: And Justine Greening is apparently a trained accountant. Lol. You couldn't make this stuff up.
radioheadrule83
Banned
First probably would have ended up like GNER / National Express, so they should probably be grateful... and I'm grateful because having travelled First and Virgin, I much prefer Virgin's services.
You're right though, the whole franchise system is a mess and it doesn't work for travellers. I used to do a lot of travelling on trains, but I just drive a low emission car now, even when I go inter-city - because its actually more cost effective for me. With six carriages a car in a lot of cases and lots of seats being filled every hour, I'm pretty sure that shouldn't be the case.
Vivalaraza
Member
Ed Milliband is so uninspiring.
CyclopsRock
Member
Maybe it doesn't work as well as it could for passengers, but passenger numbers have rocketed since privatisation. Surely this can't all be put down to the increased price in petrol? Something has occured - be it on the rail way side, other forms of public transport, the nature and location of people's work etc - that has caused people to find trains to be a better way of getting to work than they did 20 years ago.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Yes, theres more population and a little more social mobility seeing a lot more people become commuters and such like. The world is a far smaller place since the 80's after all, and people are no longer content to live in their backwater villages until the end of days like off of Heartbeat. Defending even the goddam train privatisation is a sign of TRUE BLUE, Cyclops Rock. Step off the limited edition Kool Aid colour variant.
Privatisation has been an utter disaster, prices are completely out of control, the balancing of first class to standard quantities of seats on most trains are completely out of whack (costing the companies vast amounts of missed business for every voyage), and now it turns out the awarding of contracts part is fucked. All for the most important transport network in the country.
Glad ol' Branny decided to stick his boot in over this. It seemed more than a little mental that the best and most competitively priced train service I've used in the UK was going to be given to fucking First.
Privatisation has been an utter disaster, prices are completely out of control, the balancing of first class to standard quantities of seats on most trains are completely out of whack (costing the companies vast amounts of missed business for every voyage), and now it turns out the awarding of contracts part is fucked. All for the most important transport network in the country.
Glad ol' Branny decided to stick his boot in over this. It seemed more than a little mental that the best and most competitively priced train service I've used in the UK was going to be given to fucking First.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I'm in two minds about it, I thought the initial award to First was definitely crooked and should not have happened. Going back on it will cost around £50m which is a complete waste of money.
As for the civil service getting blamed, it probably is their fault for not investigating the bids thoroughly so I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Ministers and governments come and go, but the incompetence in the department of transport has always been there (for longer than I have been alive). The DoT is one where useless people are shoved so they stay away from more sensitive matters, DfiD is the same. It is like the arsehole of the public sector. If someone the government can't sack is fucking up in the MoD or Treasury, they ship them out to the DoT. It's why they are almost all a bunch of incompetents and why the transport network and infrastructure in the country is so bad. This is not a Labour/Tory argument, it has always been that way.
radioheadrule83
Banned
I'm loathe to see lower ranking civil servants take the blame because for something of this magnitude senior civil servants and ministers should be taking a pro active interest and having some accountability. It sickens me that the buck never seems to stop with the ministers in charge. No doubt there was huge pressure on those inspecting the bids to go with the cheapest / most cost effective option.
I can't speak for everyone, but I used the trains a lot because I had no other choice. Our cities are too cramped for high levels of traffic and parking, and some councils running those cities use parking as a revenue generator.
The nature and location of the work is a huge factor too... I often feel that in order to get ahead in life, it often entails leaving your comfort zone or your locality -- so for me that was getting out of Liverpool for a while to try and find a better job, which I did.
Having done that, and having had friends who live elsewhere, I feel as though working commuters are simply exploited by the rail franchisees. People HAVE to go to work for a certain time, so I can understand that there is a greater demand for tickets at peak times and that the demand can drive prices higher... but I've sat on half empty trains during some rush hours asking myself why on earth the price for the privilege was so prohibitively expensive.
Season ticket discounts are insignificant. The price increases in the last year or two have finally made it so that it is more economically feasible for me to buy, insure and run a car than it was for me to spend thousands on train travel. As I say, for a lot of people, that might be true for them too -- but they probably wouldn't be able to get cheap parking in their job as I have.
I don't feel like I've seen significant improvements to services in the last 10 years. I've seen station improvements, improved ticketing processes and so on -- but the actual service from A to B? No. Always the same. Unpredictable. Terrible on a Sunday. Carriages that stink of shit by the toilets.
I don't believe that significant re-investment is going on. I know that some routes ARE being upgraded, such as Bristol to London, crossrail, etc - but prices have already risen every year, and the lead time on these projects is huge, and actual delivery won't happen for years - well into the next government, possibly beyond that. I don't feel like these companies are under enough pressure to deliver - they know that a lot of people NEED to use their services, whether they're good or not.
I can't speak for everyone, but I used the trains a lot because I had no other choice. Our cities are too cramped for high levels of traffic and parking, and some councils running those cities use parking as a revenue generator.
The nature and location of the work is a huge factor too... I often feel that in order to get ahead in life, it often entails leaving your comfort zone or your locality -- so for me that was getting out of Liverpool for a while to try and find a better job, which I did.
Having done that, and having had friends who live elsewhere, I feel as though working commuters are simply exploited by the rail franchisees. People HAVE to go to work for a certain time, so I can understand that there is a greater demand for tickets at peak times and that the demand can drive prices higher... but I've sat on half empty trains during some rush hours asking myself why on earth the price for the privilege was so prohibitively expensive.
Season ticket discounts are insignificant. The price increases in the last year or two have finally made it so that it is more economically feasible for me to buy, insure and run a car than it was for me to spend thousands on train travel. As I say, for a lot of people, that might be true for them too -- but they probably wouldn't be able to get cheap parking in their job as I have.
I don't feel like I've seen significant improvements to services in the last 10 years. I've seen station improvements, improved ticketing processes and so on -- but the actual service from A to B? No. Always the same. Unpredictable. Terrible on a Sunday. Carriages that stink of shit by the toilets.
I don't believe that significant re-investment is going on. I know that some routes ARE being upgraded, such as Bristol to London, crossrail, etc - but prices have already risen every year, and the lead time on these projects is huge, and actual delivery won't happen for years - well into the next government, possibly beyond that. I don't feel like these companies are under enough pressure to deliver - they know that a lot of people NEED to use their services, whether they're good or not.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm not really for it - I think the key virtue of the free market is competition, and the competition available from trains is limited due to, you know, the rails. That said, they are still forced to compete, albeit with other methods of transportation. I think the problem - as I ever profess! - is that it was ever in government hands. It stopped being a service for a set of customers and started being a public service - a mandate that's more or less impossible for private companies to keep up (for the same reason Royal Mail could never be effectively privatised). However, now that's neither here nor there. We have what we have now, and yes, rail privatisation has a lot of flaws. That said, I can't think of a decent way to do it. Keeping it in government hands is a terrible idea for the same reason it's terrible in most markets - they get bummed over a barrel by unions and, with no financial incentive to meet demand, there is even less incentive for them to improve services. I don't think there is a good solution to the problem.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Fucking nailed it. The one thing I hate about the rail network is the complete lack of investment, and when they do want to do it, they expect the taxpayer to subsidise it via Network Rail. They want to take home the profits from running the franchise over the 10-12 years they have it and in that time invest absolutely no money in the actual network. Fuck them all.
I have no solution to the problem, but my best guess would be to model our rail network on the Swiss Railways (SBB), a government majority owned monopoly in the private sector with a set charter that 80% of all profits must be reinvested and not go on directors bonuses.
CyclopsRock
Member
Whilst I'm not against such an idea, I'm confused about how a majority government owned monopoly can be considered private sector. If you have a single company and the government is the majority shareholder, you get no competition, no incentive for profit (because those that would want to make money, the minority shareholders, are just that, a minority). Running it with the hope of making profit isn't the same as it being private sector!
I guess the problem with investment is that most investment takes a lot longer than the course of a franchise license to recoup its cost - you may get benefits from updating the rolling stock, but you might not break even from that benefit for 25 years. I don't think you can criticise franchise holders for not actively planning to lose money. Perhaps that is a reason why it should be nationalised. Or perhaps the "investment" could be public, and the running private, with the obvious addition that the franchise license cost would go up (as the private companies no longer have an obligation towards investment).
I dunno. The whole thing's fucked.
radioheadrule83
Banned
I personally think we should look after the actual rails and infrastructure the same way we look after the highways (ie. that should be DfT). Subcontract it if need be, but let's give ourselves the flexibility needed for the government to make changes when they're needed. I think ticketing staff and signalling staff should be centrally employed via a bidding contractor that is NOT the franchisee too. I don't want the franchisees to control the routes or all of the staff, I want them to make the journeys more enjoyable by offering unique carriages, and services on the route and in our train stations.
Buy and sell off station property, restructure ticket prices to re-unify the different rail networks, and give the franchisee running the arrival/departure stations and the train itself only a standard cut of each ticket. Make running a route between popular destinations a privilege for which they are encouraged to reinvest. Force them to make their real money via other means. I don't care if big companies like Virgin back out... if they weren't prepared to run our train station food courts and on-board services, some other innovator might. The current system is a cabal that doesn't allow for a low cost innovator equivalent to RyanAir or EasyJet to enter.
Buy and sell off station property, restructure ticket prices to re-unify the different rail networks, and give the franchisee running the arrival/departure stations and the train itself only a standard cut of each ticket. Make running a route between popular destinations a privilege for which they are encouraged to reinvest. Force them to make their real money via other means. I don't care if big companies like Virgin back out... if they weren't prepared to run our train station food courts and on-board services, some other innovator might. The current system is a cabal that doesn't allow for a low cost innovator equivalent to RyanAir or EasyJet to enter.
Visualante2
Member
Virgin redeemed? I'm so shocked, I honestly thought Branson was just throwing his rattle out the pram. Really sad state of affairs, was there no major investigation after National Express East Coast screwed up their operation?
radioheadrule83 raises some intriguing points. Especially with regard to Easy Jet equivalents. We're paying for a British Airways like service but not getting the quality and being stiffed with anti consumer measures. Off peak is the same price as peak on my line because it's a direct to London line. They're allowed to do this because they offer rock bottom prices on lines nobody travels on.
radioheadrule83 raises some intriguing points. Especially with regard to Easy Jet equivalents. We're paying for a British Airways like service but not getting the quality and being stiffed with anti consumer measures. Off peak is the same price as peak on my line because it's a direct to London line. They're allowed to do this because they offer rock bottom prices on lines nobody travels on.
CyclopsRock
Member
The problem is that you've taken so many options out of their hands in this example. Easyjet couldn't enter the train market because the things that they cut costs on in the air industry were very expensive to begin with. With trains, what could they cut? With air flights before, it was the equivalent of every flight being the Orient Express - in that scenario, an EasyJet could take the rail industry by storm by providing far more ghetto trains that get the job done (though you'd have to argue that they'd be hard pressed to offer cheaper tickets AND greater investment in infrastructure) but that's basically what we have now. Also, they could compete because you could have them, British Airways, Ryanair and Aer Lingus all flying to Dublin within 15 minutes of each other, which you don't have on trains. You only have to compete once a decade. I think you're expecting a large degree of competition whilst simultaneously taking a lot of control away from them. It's hard to work out where they'd innovate if they don't control the routes, the staff, the infrastructure, ticket price etc.
killer_clank
Member
Deusch Bahn is the state owned railway company in Germany - it's massive and ludicrously profitable. They're so big they operate all over Europe, they even run some British rail franchises and the Arriva bus network IIRC. I think that's the sort of thing referring to.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
What Radiohead is perhaps getting at is that the rails themselves cant be innovated on, the process of A to B is a flat cost, and that sort of thing should be perhaps government owned or heavily subsidized.
As for competition, well consider maybe a standard long distance train having 15+ carriages. Thats where innovation and company jostling can begin. All little rooms packed to the rafters with consumers fixed in place for 2, 3, 4 hours and more. For commuters you've got a shorter space of time, maybe an hour, but for that time you essentially have these people as prisoners to your commercial whims. Open it all up and theres money to be made, linking in as well to all that space along every rail platform.
The problem with the railways being privatised wasn't that they were, it was that they were 100% privatised. If you put a lock on what can be privatised while the daily bog standard running of to and fro is relegated to how we maintain roads, travel is no longer prohibitively expensive. The experience during that travel however can be where premiums and all that malarkey can be played out.
As for competition, well consider maybe a standard long distance train having 15+ carriages. Thats where innovation and company jostling can begin. All little rooms packed to the rafters with consumers fixed in place for 2, 3, 4 hours and more. For commuters you've got a shorter space of time, maybe an hour, but for that time you essentially have these people as prisoners to your commercial whims. Open it all up and theres money to be made, linking in as well to all that space along every rail platform.
The problem with the railways being privatised wasn't that they were, it was that they were 100% privatised. If you put a lock on what can be privatised while the daily bog standard running of to and fro is relegated to how we maintain roads, travel is no longer prohibitively expensive. The experience during that travel however can be where premiums and all that malarkey can be played out.
Would be interesting to know whether the cock-up was actually Civil Service or Minister led.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Probably both. I suspect the minister wanted to push through a deal that was supposedly going to propose increased investment, higher capacity, better service all while lowering ticket prices and the civil service didn't do their job properly so the minister was able to get it through.
Justine Greening had better hope Cameron has her back right now and doesn't open a full investigation right now because it is not going to go well for her. I suspect the Chancellor will push for one as he wants Greening out, and he also wants a lot of people at the DfT out, this would give him the ability to do that.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
the road to heathrow begins here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19852506
Well it looks like our friend, Abu Hamza, has finally ran-out of options - good riddance.
Well it looks like our friend, Abu Hamza, has finally ran-out of options - good riddance.
Clay Davis
Member
well, hell. at least he's not advocating the use of homeopathic care on the nhs. maybe I should qualify that with a 'not yet'.
would be able to enforce such a rule? there was another tory who tried something similar with regard to abortion but was shut down by david cameron. saying that, hunt might just get his way, after all he was promoted after the shambles with the sky bid.
would be able to enforce such a rule? there was another tory who tried something similar with regard to abortion but was shut down by david cameron. saying that, hunt might just get his way, after all he was promoted after the shambles with the sky bid.
Twitter is currently going a bit mental about this. Who would have thought Jeremy Hunt would reveal himself as this much of a c***? I knew his views on abortion were questionable but I didn't think it was quite this bad. This combined with Maria Miller saying she wants a cut to 20 weeks does make me worry.