Franchising news this morning

[caradoc]

20 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

Yes it is but that seems to be forgotten by some union leaders. My own union, before I retired, has general secretaries who think that solving the world's problems is the priority;

 

My Union General Secretary thought they had the right to tell me how to vote. So as soon as I retired and no longer needed their protection I left the Union. I do now have to buy a diary every year, however. 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by caradoc
Spelling mistake

[Zomboid]

I'm not terribly shocked that my union recommends that I vote Labour; they are affiliated with the party after all, so you'd expect nothing less.

I doubt that the membership as a whole just blindly does what it's told on that count, though.

 

They do seem to have ideas about how to solve the worlds problems, but the vast majority of what I hear from them is about how they're trying to protect pay and conditions etc, which is what I pay my subs for.

 

I've never used the diary, though. Google calendar is much more useful to me.

[phil-b259]

On ‎21‎/‎09‎/‎2020 at 20:40, Ohmisterporter said:

 

For those of us not in the know, may I ask whom is the Mr. W to which you refer and why is he apparently so powerful?

 

The Department for Transport’s Director of Passenger Rail Services Peter Wilkinson and the third highest paid civil servant in Whitehall

 

The man who openly told a public meeting in Croydon organised by Conservative MP Gavin Barwell that train drivers were ‘muppets’ who earned £60,000 a year. Mr Wilkinson then said that he will enforce changes to drivers’ conditions and added “we’re going to have punch ups and we will see industrial action and I want your support” before concluding that ‘we have got to break them.’

 

https://www.aslef.org.uk/article.php?group_id=4692

 

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-slams-punch-up-dft-official/

 

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-dismisses-half-hearted-belated-apology/

[phil-b259]

On ‎23‎/‎09‎/‎2020 at 16:56, Ohmisterporter said:

 

Yes it is but that seems to be forgotten by some union leaders. My own union, before I retired, has general secretaries who think that solving the world's problems is the priority; and anyone who stands against them at re-election time is hounded into giving up. 

 

I present Mick Cash and the rest of the late Bob Crow fans whose avowed aim is to turn the country into a socialist state come what may. Wish they would all disappear off to Cuba if they think socialism is so great and leave the Union to get on with boring stuff like rates of pay, T&cs, etc

Edited September 24, 2020 by phil-b259

[DY444]

My view is that the prospects for members of ASLEF and RMT are not too rosy at all as things stand.  I don't think it takes too much of a wild imagination to envisage cost cutting becoming a major priority in the next 18-24 months.  I don't think it is too far fetched to envisage a scenario where ASLEF is faced with the choice of changes to T&Cs or redundancies.  I don't think it is too far fetched to envisage a scenario where the RMT bitterly regrets not reaching a nationwide compromise on DOO when it had the chance and finding out that state control is not the utopia it believed.

 

I also note that ASLEF members have voted for industrial action on London Underground to protect T&Cs.  Time will tell how that plays out but I don't think it is too far fetched to envisage a scenario where it turns out to be something they live to regret.

 

In short protecting your member's interests is a union's raison d'etre but there are occasions where being too aggressive in doing so risks bringing the edifice down.  This feels to me like it is building up to have all the ingredients to do that if the parties involved are not careful. 

[Nearholmer]

I can't find a copy of it on-line, but way back in the 1920s, there was a famous poster showing how, in hard times, everybody was asked to take a step back down the ladder in prosperity terms.

 

The point it was making was that those at the top of the ladder, generally those calling for sacrifices by everyone else, were still alright, even after taking a step-down, while those on the bottom rung were pushed right off the ladder altogether, to drown in absolute poverty.

 

My gut feeling is that, unless something very radical happens very soon, exactly the same will apply this time round: the very well-off will sacrifice (pay more tax), but won't really feel it much; the broad middle, people who remain employed/pensioned on reasonable terms, will feel it to varying degrees, some only a bit, some quite badly; and, those who are already in a difficult place, or become unemployed, or find wages in their area of work are squeezed really harshly, will feel it really badly indeed.

 

To me, the huge issue is the degree to which, and the duration for which, "cushioning measures" can be kept going, and the extent to which taxes can be levied without taking so much demand out of the system that it compounds the problem. There must also be a looming issue with personal debt, all those big mortgages against houses sold at prices inflated by low interest rates, all the PCPs on cars, that sort of thing - even with vanishingly low interest rates more people are going to be in debt-trouble.

 

The big, permanent/lasting , structural change that this precipitates might be the introduction of a much clearer "universal subsistence system", which is very much needed to clear-up the mind-boggling mess of various tax and benefit arrangements, and to get us geared for a "less work" future as the robots progressively eat into our traditional way of distributing the means of subsistence and a bit more (people working for wages) .......... it would be a great irony if a government of the current political colour left that as its most memorable legacy, which looks increasingly likely.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Nearholmer

[rockershovel]

One thing I will freely predict WON’T happen, is a repeat of the gesture by which then Secretary to the Treasury,  Stanley Baldwin, voluntarily donated 20% of his personal assets to help the national debt after WW1. This wasn’t much copied at the time, although there IS a trust fund (currently standing at around £400m) which is a legacy of those far-off times - but so far, has defied any attempt to demonstrate that its well-meaning, but vague terms have been met.

 

 

 

[BR(S)]

Damning letter from Mick Lynch, Assistant General Secretary of the RMT:

 

https://howiescorner.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-rmt-union-at-breaking-point.html?m=1

 

 

[mdvle]

8 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

There must also be a looming issue with personal debt, all those big mortgages against houses sold at prices inflated by low interest rates, all the PCPs on cars, that sort of thing - even with vanishingly low interest rates more people are going to be in debt-trouble.

 

Something in general for people to consider.

 

Even if, using a somewhat random number, unemployment rises to 20% as big and scary as that is, remember that it means 80% are still employed.

 

Yes, it will be a big problem for those unemployed and thus those who still have an income might want to consider helping out those groups/charities who help those in trouble.

 

But it doesn't mean a collapse of a country or economy - though there could well be social problems as the young (teens/20's) are much harder hit than the rest of the population.

 

A quick search reveals this BBC story that indicates that the Office for Budget Responsibility, even in their pessimistic forecast, only expects unemployment to reach 13.2%.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52660591

 

The concern over personal debt, while a valid concern long term, is misplaced at the moment - the worry about big mortgages and other loans is when interest rates climb and end up putting a very large part of the population in financial trouble all at once thanks to increased monthly payments - and interest rates thanks to Covid aren't going up anytime soon.

 

Thus this story demonstrating housing prices increasing in the UK (although no increase in London) despite Covid

https://www.theweek.co.uk/london-house-prices

 

[Pandora]

8 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I can't find a copy of it on-line, but way back in the 1920s, there was a famous poster showing how, in hard times, everybody was asked to take a step back down the ladder in prosperity terms.

 

The point it was making was that those at the top of the ladder, generally those calling for sacrifices by everyone else, were still alright, even after taking a step-down, while those on the bottom rung were pushed right off the ladder altogether, to drown in absolute poverty.

 

My gut feeling is that, unless something very radical happens very soon, exactly the same will apply this time round: the very well-off will sacrifice (pay more tax), but won't really feel it much; the broad middle, people who remain employed/pensioned on reasonable terms, will feel it to varying degrees, some only a bit, some quite badly; and, those who are already in a difficult place, or become unemployed, or find wages in their area of work are squeezed really harshly, will feel it really badly indeed.

 

To me, the huge issue is the degree to which, and the duration for which, "cushioning measures" can be kept going, and the extent to which taxes can be levied without taking so much demand out of the system that it compounds the problem. There must also be a looming issue with personal debt, all those big mortgages against houses sold at prices inflated by low interest rates, all the PCPs on cars, that sort of thing - even with vanishingly low interest rates more people are going to be in debt-trouble.

 

The big, permanent/lasting , structural change that this precipitates might be the introduction of a much clearer "universal subsistence system", which is very much needed to clear-up the mind-boggling mess of various tax and benefit arrangements, and to get us geared for a "less work" future as the robots progressively eat into our traditional way of distributing the means of subsistence and a bit more (people working for wages) .......... it would be a great irony if a government of the current political colour left that as its most memorable legacy, which looks increasingly likely.

As you point out, asking people to take a cut for the "good of the economy"  was the economic thinking of the 1920s,  flawed economic thinking which added to  long-term recession and malaise in the 1920 and 30s,

As you note , the burden did not fall evenly, in the 30s the middle classes enjoyed new prosperity, more home ownership, such as those well built 1930s semi-detached  houses a purchase helped by newly introduced tax relief on mortgages, houses with the innovation of a garage to house that equally  affordable mass produced motor car by Austin or Ford. Others, my skilled  working class  GF were on short time working, only a few days of work per month.  Enter the economist Keynes to point out the errors of the politicians thinking

Edited September 25, 2020 by Pandora

[Nearholmer]

People whose earning-ability is reduced or stripped-away altogether struggle to pay their debts, even at current low interest rates and with capital repayment forever deferred.

 

House-prices always rise to the limit of affordability, so when interest rates are very low house prices rise until at that low prevailing interest rate they are barely affordable again - that’s why house prices have shot-up in recent years. Reduce or eliminate a persons earning-ability and what was barely affordable becomes unaffordable. Some people will find themselves unable to

pay their mortgage, some people will find themselves unable to pay their car PCP.

 

I expect that the post-COVID house-price rise is a blip, Which will be over swiftly, and commentators seem to agree https://www.which.co.uk/news/2020/09/how-will-the-coronavirus-affect-house-prices/ For one thing mortgage lenders have tightened their criteria markedly Precisely to avoid creating the sort of unaffordability trouble that I mention.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Nearholmer

[62613]

14 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

People whose earning-ability is reduced or stripped-away altogether struggle to pay their debts, even at current low interest rates and with capital repayment forever deferred.

 

House-prices always rise to the limit of affordability, so when interest rates are very low house prices rise until at that low prevailing interest rate they are barely affordable again - that’s why house prices have shot-up in recent years. Reduce or eliminate a persons earning-ability and what was barely affordable becomes unaffordable. Some people will find themselves unable to

pay their mortgage, some people will find themselves unable to pay their car PCP.

 

I expect that the post-COVID house-price rise is a blip, Which will be over swiftly, and commentators seem to agree ...... for one thing mortgage lenders have tightened their criteria markedly Precisely to avoid creating the sort of unaffordability trouble that I mention.

And it was the defaults of sub-prime (unaffordable) mortgages, and the ongoing effects, that resulted in the 2008 crash

[BR(S)]

4 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

LI expect that the post-COVID house-price rise is a blip, Which will be over swiftly, and commentators seem to agree https://www.which.co.uk/news/2020/09/how-will-the-coronavirus-affect-house-prices/ For one thing mortgage lenders have tightened their criteria markedly Precisely to avoid creating the sort of unaffordability trouble that I mention.

 

There seems to be a repeat of 1988/89 and into the '90s going on at the moment. Chancellor announced a temporary tax cut then with an end date, which led to a surge in house buying and a price increase. Then came the significant housing market slump as the recession hit.

 

The difference right now is the Bank of England will continue to pump multi-billions of fake money into economic bubbles to do everything they can to stop house prices from heading down. It remains to be seen what effect that has this time, but I'd be amazed if catastrophe isn't awaiting us in 2021.

 

Post-2008 should have seen a gradual "normalising" of interest rates, so a base rate cut from say 4% to 0.1% now, on top of more sensible lending in those years, would have had a positive effect and not the useless effort of cutting to 0.1% now.

 

Fiat economy indeed.

[adb968008]

On 21/09/2020 at 11:21, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Getting rid of the franchise system should make it rather easier to reform the fares structure. IT capabilities have moved forward massively in the 25 years since privatisation and offer plenty of possibilities.

The polish way is to sell tickets by the kilometer.

No unfairness in that.

 

That opens scope to include a “Subsidy” price also to be £ & p visible on the ticket, so people actually see how much specific lines are being subsidized...

 

That subsidy price could be +ve as well as -ve so people see how much they are subsidising other lines too.

 

that may focus minds.

Edited September 26, 2020 by adb968008

[adb968008]

On 25/09/2020 at 08:31, DY444 said:

My view is that the prospects for members of ASLEF and RMT are not too rosy at all as things stand.  I don't think it takes too much of a wild imagination to envisage cost cutting becoming a major priority in the next 18-24 months.  I don't think it is too far fetched to envisage a scenario where ASLEF is faced with the choice of changes to T&Cs or redundancies.  I don't think it is too far fetched to envisage a scenario where the RMT bitterly regrets not reaching a nationwide compromise on DOO when it had the chance and finding out that state control is not the utopia it believed.

 

I also note that ASLEF members have voted for industrial action on London Underground to protect T&Cs.  Time will tell how that plays out but I don't think it is too far fetched to envisage a scenario where it turns out to be something they live to regret.

 

In short protecting your member's interests is a union's raison d'etre but there are occasions where being too aggressive in doing so risks bringing the edifice down.  This feels to me like it is building up to have all the ingredients to do that if the parties involved are not careful. 

I’d imagine its not too much push into bringIng in driverless tube.
If the unions push too hard, it may just tip it into “ok lets get on with it” and let the strike themselves to extinction.

[Joseph_Pestell]

9 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

The polish way is to sell tickets by the kilometer.

 

No unfairness in that.

 

That should indeed be the basis as it offers the most simplicity.

 

The advantage of having all the operators on management contract rather than franchises is that the fares revenue can be attributed more fairly between them when a passenger uses several different TOCs as part of his journey.

 

I wrote a paper on this subject more than 20 years ago and the IT was already in place then to make it work. Even easier now with so many people having apps on smartphones.

[rockershovel]

Interest rates rose rapidly (to 17% at one point) in the 1970s and the actual result was inflation, as I dare say many here, will recall. However a major difference this time, is the extent of foreign speculation in the property markets. 

 

 

[adb968008]

On 25/09/2020 at 09:49, Nearholmer said:

 

 

The point it was making was that those at the top of the ladder, generally those calling for sacrifices by everyone else, were still alright, even after taking a step-down, while those on the bottom rung were pushed right off the ladder altogether, to drown in absolute poverty.

 

My gut feeling is that, unless something very radical happens very soon, exactly the same will apply this time round: the very well-off will sacrifice (pay more tax), but won't really feel it much; the broad middle, people who remain employed/pensioned on reasonable terms, will feel it to varying degrees, some only a bit, some quite badly; and, those who are already in a difficult place, or become unemployed, or find wages in their area of work are squeezed really harshly, will feel it really badly indeed.

 

The trouble is it assumes there is enough wealthy out there, to sacrifice there wealth.

British governments have been asset stripping the wealthy for nearly 100 years. There is a reason National Trust owns so many country houses.. their previous occupiers saw loss of empire, loss of trade and business fade. Without new wealthy to replace them, the houses have been handed to the national.

 

Land sales subsequently happened, Businesses sold overseas and that wealth has gone and the cash spent.

Business and money has moved to the US, manufacturing to China.  if you think someone in Britain is rich, add a few zeros to that wealth in the US and Asia.. the UK has been trading on empire generation reputation for a good few years now, and Brexit is changing that, as is new generations around the world growing up not having experienced British rule, and being influenced by other countries.

 

That leaves Britains relatively shrinking base of low zero millionaires.... stripping  a few hundred people of a million a piece, wont even build a couple of hospitals.
 

Is the nation broke and failing ? We have a culture of failure, jealousy and desire to pull someone down, destroy success and rob them as soon as they achieve.

The trouble with this Robin Hood without replacing the Sheriffs approach, is eventually Robin Hood has to rob himself.

 

Charles Darwin can easily demonstrate this...

 

you have a mixed pool of fish in a pond.. if you keep taking out the big fish, the size of a big fish shrinks. However as it is gradual, the perception of “big” goes unnoticed. Similarly if you have streams big enough for young fish to leave, but too small for big fish to escape.. Then you end up with a pool of average aged fat fish, that slowly get older... amply demonstrated by our world beating covid death number.

The last decade has seen high achievers stalled in their incomes, even “better than average” 40% tax payers have stagnated in the last decade, whilst at the lower end, low earners have done pretty good and our “middle” class has grown.. whilst it may feel good, its been funded by the glut of newly minted cash, which has inflated the nation and devalued the currency.. the poor have more, but prices have risen greater.

 

I dont think the government can tax its way out of Covid, it has already done that in 2008, it has cut back Austerity and Brexit has destroyed wealth. Interest rates have gone, shares have collapsed.
I see two levers left... 100 year bonds (like War Bonds), followed by revaluing the currency (like decimalisation) to inflate it away... end of the “pence” denomination and we just use £’s, with £1 the lowest tender, and let prices of goods inflate & revalue accordingly, call it “digitalisation” of our currency and get used to a £100 cup of tea as the decimal point moves 2 places and gets rounded overnight. It would soak up instantly that quantitive cash and solve many issues.

The other option is the South American approach.. just freeze the nations bank accounts one morning and take the wealth from peoples bank accounts directly.. give everyone a hair cut... it wouldn't happen in the UK ?- Well look how many other unprecedented 3rd world actions we've seen Britain take in the last decade, indeed the last 3 years has been a continual chavalanche of them. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by adb968008

[TheQ]

Back in the 1950, great houses were being knocked down or "accidentally " catching fire at two a week,  that was when death duties hit 80% as they were valued at a huge amount but were unsellable and just a millstone round the owners necks.

 

The one problem with keynsian economics, is the politicians don't don't obey it.  OK they spend when the economy is down,  but then continue to spend during a high economy,  witness 2years before the 2008 crash they were already spending more than HMG were receiving. 

Monetarist economics as carried out by politicians  has the opposite problems they control the money tightly and don't spend enough when they need to,  but are taking in the money to clear some of the debits in a boom. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by TheQ

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

The trouble is it assumes there is enough wealthy out there, to sacrifice there wealth.

There are always people who are more well-off than most (I didn’t use the word “wealthy”), and they can always expect to pay a higher proportion of tax than their less-well-off peers, at least in a country that has some concept of equity.

 

That is way short of asset-stripping the very wealthy, which wasn’t what I was driving at at all. There are still a few people in the UK who are very wealthy, at least in asset terms, but I have a feeling that if one sequestered the lot, it wouldn’t actually solve the problem.

 

And, I was more forecasting how it will be for us all (we will pay more tax, the more more the more we’ll-off) rather than proposing a solution.

 

One option that governments will surely look at, if they haven’t already, is to recover some of the post-2008 quantitative easing cash by taxing the thing that QE most directly inflated - house prices. The affect of QE was a reverse-robin-hood, which increased the value of assets that people with assets already owned. So, I forecast (not advocate note) capital gains tax on house sales (probably above a certain value initially), which are currently covered by the exemption for homes. 

 

I too keep wondering why the UK doesn’t formally de-value the pound (As opposed to devaluing by market, which happened after the Brexit poll), but maybe it’s too awful a step in prestige terms or wouldn’t help the way economics now works.
 

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Nearholmer

[adb968008]

22 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

There are always people who are more well-off than most (I didn’t use the word “wealthy”), and they can always expect to pay a higher proportion of tax than their less-well-off peers, at least in a country that has some concept of equity.

 

Communism ?

But that ideology had some who were more equal than others.

 

I dont think there is enough wealthy to cover the spending on the needy/wanty during covid, without Killing the golden goose completely.

 

At some point equality will fail, as in any herd, there are weaker ones and stronger ones. Shackling the stronger ones, weakens the overall herd, which is why nature does its thing to the weaker... which is precisely what Covid is doing right now.

 

Unfortunately I do think that a more equal share of this burden will need to take place, across rich, moderate and poor, especially as its the poor that are being disproportionately Benefitted during this time, by a disease that is Darwinian rather than Capitalist in its selection of victims.

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by adb968008

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

I’d imagine its not too much push into bringIng in driverless tube.
If the unions push too hard, it may just tip it into “ok lets get on with it” and let the strike themselves to extinction.

While I agree the RMT are far too militant about many issues, as  TfL employee I can tell you that Driverless Tube will not happen in my lifetime and it will be because of affordability, not union resistance.

The Tube was simply not built to be adapted for driverless operation, modifying it would require changes costing vastly more than paying drivers.  Certain politicians keep bringing up the issue to try and create a villain for London commuters, but if they ever saw the bill for trains and infrastructure, they'd soon lose interest. 

[Nearholmer]

Not communism, no.

 

Progressive taxation in a mixed economy.

 

We’ve had that in most European democracies, including the UK, for a very long time, and it even applies in the USA for instance, although ramped less steeply and forever the subject of deep ideologically-driven argument.

 

Social Darwinism Largely died-out as a philosophy long-ago because of its manifest unfairness and it’s propensity to provide good cover for extremes of bullying and exploitation.

 

The things that separate us from most of the natural world are our brains and our ability to act collaboratively by design. A “law of the jungle” approach throws both of those away at the outset - it’s like setting-out on a three day hike across the fells by burning your boots and tent.

[adb968008]

19 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Not communism, no.

 

Progressive taxation in a mixed economy.

 

We’ve had that in most European democracies, including the UK, for a very long time, and it even applies in the USA for instance, although ramped less steeply and forever the subject of deep ideologically-driven argument.

 

Social Darwinism Largely died-out as a philosophy long-ago because of its manifest unfairness and it’s propensity to provide good cover for extremes of bullying and exploitation.

 

The things that separate us from most of the natural world are our brains and our ability to act collaboratively by design. A “law of the jungle” approach throws both of those away at the outset - it’s like setting-out on a three day hike across the fells by burning your boots and tent.

Yes but Covid doesn't discriminate.

So your argument fails there.

Covid is darwinian in its nature.

 

Whatever economic stick you throw at it, Covid will beat it.

The economics can only come to play after Covid, amongst the survivors.

 

We are oversold on the £, over printed in circulation, and capital flight started with Brexit and has rumbled on since, the sell off of stocks for £’s was considerable in March, if Brexit goes south were ripe for a huge run on the £ to add to that covid bill.
 

If that economic damage is greater than the survivors ability to pay.. then thats it, your bankrupt.

 

I suspect santa doesn't have enough presents in his sack to pay for all the children this time, so as in the 1920’s an economic hard time is coming, which will need to be shared across all, not just the top..You need high earners to bank roll the weaker. Without a head to lead, the herd will wither anyway.

 

At the back of my mind, I suspect we will be bailed out and subservient to the US as that lead. That rescue will be the price paid for the trade deal. Perhaps even on the USD as currency, black or white market, the UK economy is way behind many other countries, even before covid. If that happens, it will be on their rules, which are less social and more capitalist than ours.

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by adb968008

[Nearholmer]

ADB

 

You are taking what I said several posts back, turning it into something I didn't say, then attacking that.

 

At no point did I say that the economic burden should be borne only be the most well-off; if you read what I said it was that it will hit all of us, but that the most well-off will feel it less, which is true, because prosperity always offers some kind of cushion.

 

As for everybody being affected equally by COVID, very much not the case.

 

There is an absolute stack of evidence that prosperity is a good friend in both avoiding the virus in the first place, and surviving it of you do catch it. Even in the UK it is blindingly-obvious that the least prosperous are copping it disproportionately, which is no surprise given less-spacious housing, jobs that involve being much more exposed, poorer nutrition and general health, so lower ability to fight the bug.

 

As to equating current prosperity with fitness to lead the herd ........ hugely debatable. The qualities needed to get rich aren't always the ones needed to lead a country in crisis, or indeed at any other time, and there are plenty of people who are by no means super-wealthy but are very smart and very good leaders.

 

The sort of leadership we need now is the sort that exploits our natural advantages - we need leaders who are (a) highly intelligent, and (b) very good at fostering collaboration.

 

A good way to maximise death and serious illness in a pandemic is to have leaders who are (a) not the sharpest tools in the box, and (b) divide people against one another so that they fight like rats in a barrel instead of collaboratively working out how to climb out.

 

We do agree that "hard times are just around the corner" - it doesn't feel as if we agree on much else.

 

K